Thank you for being with us today. We appreciate it very much.
I'm unfortunately going to speak in English.
I'm not surprised that your study shows that unionized work forces or Quebec construction is 2% cheaper, because my experience has been that good contractors with good work forces can work faster, can work more efficiently, and can compete better than others.
My questions, though, have to do with the nature of our study, which is whether or not—I'll use the term—public-private partnerships are something that should be a natural part of every infrastructure spend by municipalities if it includes federal money. The rules, as I read them in the budget, are that any time a municipality wants to spend federal money on a project of a certain size or over, it has to do what is called a P3 screening.
So even if everybody understands there is no way that a project is going to be a P3 project, you are forced to do the red tape that the government provides—a P3 screening—and you're forced to spend that money. The government says they'll give you half of the money for that screening, but that's money that is wasted. That's money that is spent with no benefit to the taxpayer because there is no likelihood that this would ever be a P3 project.
Is that a good use of taxpayers' money, to force every municipality that is asking for federal money to go through a P3 screen?