I would like to begin by saying that I heard the government's position earlier, and I must admit that it made me feel somewhat sick.
When I sat on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the government at least had the decency to say that the study showed that there was indeed a problem and that the P3s were not applicable in every circumstance. Today, I am hearing that that is not the case. Whatever the consequences, some people will profit, and so it is fine to implement P3s.
We have heard about the United Kingdom, where there are consequences on the debt and on hospital services. I see some red flags. Soon the Champlain Bridge is going to be built in Quebec. There was also the construction of the A-25. I think that at a given point, we have to think about the position we adopt carefully.
When the government imposes its will by specifying that funds will be allocated to transfers on condition that P3s be in place, and doesn't even have the decency and openness needed to acknowledge the problems, there will be consequences.
In my municipality, we are talking about millions of dollars for infrastructure, and we don't have the means to make these improvements. However, now we are told that there could be funds, and that there is no problem insofar as we implement P3s despite the consequences, since no one seems to be taking them into account anymore. There is a problem. On our side, we are favourable to P3s, but we need to see some evolution. All the better if our society can evolve.
I am wondering if the witnesses have any brief comments to make regarding the consequences.