First of all, it's not true that taxpayers are getting money from the discounted loan. The taxpayers are providing the discounted loan. They're the ones paying the full cost of any discount of basis points on the financing. The Infrastructure Bank is a taxpayer-funded institution, so any discount you're providing the project is paid for by taxpayers, which is effectively a grant, a very complicated grant, and a hard one for the average taxpayer to figure out. In fact, most people on our committee wouldn't be able to figure out what the actual cost is to taxpayers. You're basically wrapping up a grant in a much more complicated delivery vehicle, making it even more difficult for us to know whether we're getting value for money.
The other thing I would point out is that there are some large-scale projects that should not happen. Large-scale projects that don't pay for themselves and ultimately cost vastly more than they produce in benefit are actually a reduction in the value of our economy. You can look at, for example, the subsidies that went to wind and solar in Ontario: about nine cents of subsidy for every one penny of electricity. Well, a project like that should not happen, because it costs more to the people than it benefits them.
The more complicated you make your subsidy schemes, the more likely it is that taxpayers get ripped off, and the more likely it is that some very sophisticated players, who have the right consultants and lobbyists, walk off with a big fortune.
I guess my question is, if a project is not viable, then why would we want to fund it, and if a project is viable, then why would we need to fund it?