Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To all the witnesses, the infrastructure bank itself is going to require staffing, advertising, and maintenance. Should that be shared with the private sector? Should we also include our lower borrowing costs, what we bring to the table, with these? Our lower borrowing cost is certainly a very, very important part of the entire picture of a good value asset.
I'll start with Mr. Macdonald. Should the cost of the infrastructure bank itself be borne entirely by the taxpayers as an expense? Should it be something like 50-50, or some type of a structure? What do we count, then, as we're going into the arrangement with the important asset of a lower borrowing cost that nobody else can get? Is that something to consider in the overall costs to taxpayers to pay for the infrastructure bank itself?