Yes, that's on the basis of, for example, surveys of articles published by the Canadian Tax Foundation and commentary from several academic economists. Mr. Smart's work was already referenced earlier today, but there are many others.
There's a long-standing concern about the level playing field between different forms of capital income. Of course, there's a long discussion about making sure that capital income isn't taxed twice, once at the corporate level and then again at the individual level. That is the theoretical justification for the favourable treatment of all forms of capital income, but across the different types of capital income, there's been an emerging and growing inequality in how dividend income is treated versus capital gains income. Because of two things—an inclusion rate that is too low to reach that equality with dividends, and the decline in the corporate tax rate in Canada over the last couple of decades—it's clear that the treatment of capital gains is now more favourable than the treatment of dividends. That creates an enormous incentive for companies and for tax planners to try to transform any type of income into capital gains rather than interest or other forms of dividend income. There can be significant efficiency losses from that unequal level playing field.
I think that's the main reason that this idea of increasing the inclusion rate to two-thirds or even to 75%, maybe—many academic economists have suggested 75% —makes sense from that perspective.