Yes, anything reported in the budget is the fiscal costs. The capital cost allowance extension we're talking about, and this tax credit you're mentioning, would particularly be the ones from which you'd expect productivity benefits, and the government would get some of its money back from them. So the fiscal cost would be an over-estimate of the cost to the government. I think the officials in the Department of Finance would agree with that. I've taken it up with them, frankly, and they agree that's the situation, that the revenue the government will get will be ongoing, though sometimes it takes several years before the productivity benefits arise. A lot more revenues can be expected from certain tax cuts than others, and they are not included in the budget.
I would say that in some of these broad-based tax cuts, roughly speaking, they'll get about 20% of their money back. That's the order of magnitude. Some arguments can be made that some tax cuts can pay for themselves. I would say that's what we would call a corner solution. That will only apply when companies then start reporting their profits in Canada, rather than in another country for tax purposes—a transfer pricing situation that does not apply to real movements of resources, and whatever. In those situations where you get into transfer pricing, maybe you can get your money back; but other than that, if you can get 10%, 20%, or 30% of your money back going forward five years, that's the sort of thing we're talking about. It's going to be in that range. And that would apply to that tax cut too, because it should help productivity.