Thank you for your question. It's a very good one.
Obviously our members have been interested and active in exploring all options for delivering municipal infrastructure. In terms of what we've learned, I think it can be summed up most easily this way: our members feel that P3s can go a very long way in supplementing the investments of the past but also, looking ahead, as investments under the new long-term infrastructure plan. P3s can be a great supplemental avenue or mechanism for municipalities.
We caution against P3s being considered to supplant traditional investment. The best thing the federal government can do is, as Brock mentioned earlier, provide a full suite of options for municipalities to deliver municipal infrastructure, meaning traditional investments that are then supplemented by P3s.
In reality, municipalities are construction management experts. Our members build, operate, and maintain a wide variety of infrastructure across the country. P3s really require a different skill set. They require contract management. This is, at times, a very expensive skill set to acquire for a municipality. In providing, as Brock said, stable, secure investments in our communities, it's also important for there to be a recognition that we have a long way to go to arming municipalities with the information they need to be able to determine if a P3 is right for them. Adding to what Brock said in his opening comments, those are the types of lessons we have learned from P3s in the past. Those are the types of lessons we're very much looking forward to in the long-term infrastructure plan, and having a discussion about those.