Absolutely. I think Janet already alluded to some dimensions of that.
I think what I was trying to suggest in my comments was that we need to rethink, adopt a different way of framing our fiscal and monetary policies to bring in the understanding that there are structure biases that unfold sometimes in a way that's not necessarily intentional.
In particular, given that the government has put so much emphasis on infrastructure spending over the next 10 years, I think it would be important to rethink social infrastructure investment as something that's productive to the economy, because essentially what you're doing with public sector investment is generating more resources directly. You're giving it to the people working in that social infrastructure sector, which means not only are you sustaining them today but also tomorrow. It could generate greater revenues for government as well as enhance the fiscal space I talked about, so I think that's a really important dimension to think about at the same time as you're debating physical infrastructure projects.
Secondly, as I tried to suggest, the idea that what goes on outside of the formal economy is something we should not really think about when we're formulating fiscal policy is, I think, false. It has been shown through research that it actually underestimates what the contribution of unpaid work or the voluntary sector is to both the private and the public sector. I think it's really important to think of time use in the unpaid sector as performing a useful function, because essentially it is creating labour for the formal sector. I think that conventional economists kind of assume that labour appears and do not think about what it takes to get that worker to their work site.