Again, and I'm sorry if I'm not being clear, but it's not a matter of using P3s or using traditional procurement methods. Our concern as a think tank is to ensure the variety of ways in which Canadian workers choose to organize themselves on the ground in the construction workforce, whether that's in publicly procured projects without P3s or with P3s, so that they are able to bid and to work on projects that their tax dollars pay for.
There are many examples of P3s that work well. There are examples of P3s that don't work well. There are P3s that use unionized labour of the traditional building crafts. There are P3s that use other labour. What we're saying is that the reality on the ground in terms of the way workers organize themselves has changed from the time that the laws were originally set up. What needs to happen is that policy needs to recognize that there's a spectrum of ways in which workers choose to organize themselves, and those workers should not be disqualified from working on projects their tax dollars pay for.
It's not a question of P3s or not. We are not taking a position on P3s here. It's simply a question of whether or not publicly funded projects should be available to the full spectrum of Canadians who pay for them.