I have addressed that question in a publication which came out earlier this year.
The point to stress is that you're not getting extra finance from P3s. You're paying more, possibly, for them. The issue is there is a real infrastructure deficit at all levels of government. I think we all accept that. The question is how best to finance it.
I think the federal government has a responsibility, and there is some money for infrastructure, but there should be more money for infrastructure. It would fit in very nicely with action plans. It would fit in very nicely with the phase of the economic cycle that we're in, and the instability that we're facing. I think there would be scope for more federal funding for infrastructure. My argument is that we should not be tying it in a knee-jerk way to P3s.
We should be much more open about how we fund infrastructure, recognizing and acknowledging that it's always the private sector that builds infrastructure. There have been other proposals for infrastructure funds. There are various pension fund proposals. I think it's important to look at these. There are green infrastructure fund proposals that have been looked at over the years. There are proposals on the table for this.
Ultimately, I think, and appropriately at this part of the cycle, recognizing that money doesn't grow on trees, the federal government is in a position to do more than it has been doing.