I know that is one side of the argument, but the other side of the argument is that the whole effort, of course, originally, and the contribution agreements we signed with municipalities and provinces were specifically to try to jump-start the economy in that crisis period, if you will, and to try to finish it all by March 31. Every proponent of a project not only agreed to that, but they had engineers signing off who said they could actually do that.
By kind of keeping the pressure on to complete it by March 31, a couple of things have happened. We have a lot of projects out the door, and also, because in many parts of the country projects were done, and done ahead of time, because of that emphasis on doing shovel-ready projects, we were able to reinvest money that was realized in the savings. We've done over $100 million, for example, of plowing back into new projects because the original projects were done and ahead of schedule.
I hear your concern about overtime and so on, but in fact we found in many areas, many jurisdictions, that the projects actually came in under the anticipated budgets, and we were able to take those savings and plow them back into increased numbers of projects.
So it kind of cuts both ways. By being aggressive and saying “Let's do it”, we've been able to do even more than we originally anticipated.