I'd be happy to, through you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me say that I've had the opportunity to vote on two P3 projects. One I voted in favour of and one I did not. That is to highlight not that I am open-minded, but rather that not all P3 projects are created equal.
What we're saying at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is that we need the flexibility to determine at a local level whether or not it makes sense for a P3 project to proceed, not have it be forced through a P3 screening process. We need the flexibility in order to make that local determination.
The point should be made that a P3 funding model is just that: it's a funding model that is a loan that needs to be repaid, and there is a cost premium for a theoretical risk transfer. It doesn't necessarily always play out on the city side, or in fact, the citizen side or the resident side. What we're asking for at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is more of a model whereby we're receiving funding, a grant, because it's not a question of inability to access capital which is what we're coming up against. Local governments have a AAA credit rating. British Columbia, joint and several liable, can borrow at the best rates possible. The City of Vancouver has a AA+ rating. This is not an issue for most municipalities.
What we're asking for is that rather than delaying projects that are meaningful, that are shovel-ready, shovel-worthy.... They are being delayed as a result of having gone through or needing to go through a P3 screening process. We're saying the risk transference and analysis may bear some value. But it depends on each particular project.