Again, in the context of highlighting some markers, if you will, for the next budget, I think it's important that we see the plan. We were talking about Budget 2010. We're not actually talking about Budget 2011. So this was a plan that we should have seen some clarity on in 2010. We should see the austerity plan, with respect to operational restraint or any other austerity plan, should it be coming forth in the 2011 budget.
We think it's important analytically as well to be clear to parliamentarians when we're debating a new measure, whether it's reduced corporate income taxes, new spending for Afghan training missions, or other spending that we may see in the budget, that it be debated in the context of our fiscal balances--is it cyclical or is it structural? We're saying it's primarily a cyclical problem--a lot of it will go away--but there is a structural component to it. And I think the IMF produces that analysis. They want Canadians to know that as well.
Third, as I said, our major fiscal challenge is not even short term. Really, in terms of fiscal challenge, it's longer term. It's aging demographics. It's a weak productivity growth rate. It would be nice--and other countries are legislated to do so--if Minister Flaherty and the Department of Finance produced a budget that had a fiscal sustainability analysis. When we look at the Americans, and we look at budgets coming out of Washington or London in the U.K., or when we look at other countries, they're actually legislated to produce this type of analysis. So when you're debating this, you could say that Canada does not have a sustainable fiscal structure when you look to the long term. I think that will put whether it's new spending measures or it's tax reductions in a different context. So my suggestion would be more analysis along that line so that you can debate new measures in a richer context.