I'll just say very quickly that Mr. Toet's question about bundling or unbundling was a good one.
Here's an Alberta example, and it's nothing to do with the federal government. The Alberta government said it wanted to build a package of 10 schools under a P3. A gentleman came up to me at the FCM convention. He runs a small construction company in Lethbridge, and he's built schools before. He cannot build 10 schools. He can't bid on it. He knows how to build schools and he runs a construction company. He has no union bias because he came up to the CUPE table. He's really angry that the Government of Alberta has bundled up 10 schools and taken him out of the game. He could have built the two schools they want in Lethbridge.
There's an unintended consequence. I expect the Government of Alberta, if they were sitting here, would say, “Well, this will be cheaper. This is better. We have to pay for these schools, and the P3 is the way to go.” They haven't read the Auditor General of Nova Scotia's report on that.
I would say in that example that there's less competition at play in Alberta to build schools. That's in nobody's interest. We have a collective responsibility to support local entrepreneurs who run small construction companies. You can cut them out by the way you structure these things.