Thank you, Mr. McLeod. It's nice to see you again.
Yes, it doesn't really matter where the money's coming from. I think what's really important is that it's a stream of money, because I don't know if paying a lump sum is the issue. There's probably not enough money to do it all. If the infrastructure gap is at least $30 billion—it's probably more; I think it's more—and if the government is not able to fund that in a short period of time, well then, it's not getting close.
With the diesel, it's wherever the stream of revenue is, and in my example, I mentioned that the government pays for diesel. They pay for transportation. There's a cost to that, so if we had a more energy-efficient alternative, you're saving on that. That's one source of it, and I know that savings and costs go into a general pot, and there are complexities, but if there were a dedicated source as well, then communities could do it on their own times when they need it, when they're ready and when they're able to do it.
It's getting that revenue stream, and the revenue-sharing agreements are really going to build this infrastructure and really encourage economic development. A lot of the communities that we finance for certain projects are building infrastructure with what they have, but what it's doing is creating opportunities for individual people to jump into business. This is kind of like the same thing.
The diesel one, we thought, ticks off a lot of boxes that the Government of Canada is looking at.