I wanted to follow up on another discussion that took place earlier.
First of all, I'll admit my bias: I'm a big supporter of P3s. I'm a big supporter of the Canada P3 projects, or the concept that was out there under the Conservative government. I'm not familiar with what Mr. Masse was talking about. I am familiar with Alberta.
In my view, the P3 only works if it's full design, build, operate, and maintain. I think I heard a couple of indications along that line. So if this infrastructure agency is going to move forward, would that be one of the things it should look at—to not necessarily just go with the design-build P3s but to ensure that it's the full package so that the taxpayer isn't on the hook? If the private sector can't justify the full package, then should the government be putting in loan guarantees or the other things that are being talked about?