I would agree with what my colleague says, but I'd also say that about a third of new incremental spending set out in last year's budget was dedicated to infrastructure—however one defines it—and that means the other two-thirds were non-infrastructure related. I don't think there is anyone who would argue that deficits for the sake of deficits are a stimulus. I think your implicit point that we need to think about the composition of stimulus, if that's indeed where we're going, needs to be a major part of the discussion.
Where I think I would respectfully disagree with my colleague is that I really do think we need to have a debate—and this committee is the right place to have it—about when and why as a country we'll run deficits as a purposeful policy. Under what circumstances should we be returning to balance? Under what circumstances are short-term deficits justified? I think that debate has largely been supplanted by this debate on what we should be spending on, instead of why or when.