I'll try first with the United States, where one would think that private industry is heavily involved. But the real facts are that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration provides a high level of funding to airports at all levels, and that's probably to over 400 airports.
They are owned and operated at a local level through quite a few different models. So there is local-regional ownership and operation.
On airports in Canada, we have a little bit of a similar situation I think as we have for harbours and small craft harbours in that the larger airports, under the national airports system--Toronto to Vancouver to Calgary to Winnipeg--are on long-term leases. They are 50 years or longer. Again, small craft harbours are for only five years.
So airports have long-term leases. They are free to raise their own capital through debt, not equity. They're not-for-profit. Of course, the larger ones can make money. They have enough traffic, so they're all right.
Once we get into smaller airports, I think you would have two classes of airports. One can exist and can generate enough revenue to meet its operational needs, but in the long term it may not be able to meet all its capital needs. There is some aviation funding available through Transport Canada for certain capital projects, but not all. It is usually for things related to safety--the runways, the navigation equipment, the snow-clearing equipment.
Then you get another group of much smaller airports. There, as you know, the government has divested itself of smaller airports and given responsibility to local municipalities. There are some benefits to that, because the local municipalities can provide some tax space and can do some borrowing, yet at the same time there are a lot of those smaller airports that are struggling and will continue to struggle. They're not going to make it in the long term.