Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree entirely with the premise of the question. Innovation is very important. The question is, who is good at choosing where we invest in innovative processes, in technologies, in industries or sectors? It's a mixed bag, looking historically across jurisdictions. Sometimes we get them right, but often we get them wrong. That is why, when I was describing, for example, a federal innovation box policy for the corporate income tax, the approach is silent. It's agnostic about exactly what it is or where it is that we pursue innovation and make use of intellectual property. That, I think, is more likely to produce good outcomes, because they're market driven.
May I add to the infrastructure prioritization question? I think there are great examples and bad ones. I generally agree with the themes that Glen enumerated. We do need long-term investment, and that helps you prioritize. The point that I was making earlier is that it has to enhance productivity, meaning things like transport linkages, such as ports and airports. Those all work.
I also strongly recommend, for something quicker, the point raised by the Assembly of First Nations on water quality. That is a terrific one. We don't have boil-water warnings because of lead or mercury poisoning. It's biological. It's bacterial or protozoan. We know how to deal with those things. We know how to fix them. The technology is off the shelf and not that expensive, and this investment would have huge improvements for quality of life and productivity on-reserve.