Okay, I appreciate that. In any case, I believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer will soon table a new, more up-to-date report that will mention the $34 billion cost of the pipeline.
However, I would like to come back to something. As I told you, I don't have a background in economics, but something is bothering me. It seems to me that in economics, there is a basic principle that when a project is considered, the risk is considered. When it comes to the Trans Mountain pipeline, it seems to me that no one was willing to take on the risk except the state. This makes it difficult for me, with my limited economics background, to understand how a project that no one wants to take a risk on can become profitable. Maybe you could explain it to me.