We have done some very interesting projects, because leveraged money goes a long way. If the federal government believes that urban conservation and green infrastructure truly are essential to a city, then it should expand the definitions. You don't even necessarily have to put as much money against it.
When I debate the cost of a park, and we have built some multi-million dollar parks in Calgary recently, I still talk about them as being a quarter of an intersection and a quarter of an overpass. The value people get from them goes far beyond that. They have that social connectivity. Parks bring people together. Some of the most social people in the world are urban dog walkers.
When you look at the triple bottom line, you can judge the success of urban infrastructure on not only the economics. I think that has been well covered, particularly in the tree discussion. You can evaluate it. It's a social benefit. It's an economic benefit. It will bring kids out of the basement and away from their laptops, back into playing soccer and everything else they should do to combat obesity. Interestingly enough, right now, recreation and health are having very significant discussions at all three levels of government.