Temporary staff agencies, for example; we hear from that an awful lot too.
I think the thinking is that this is saving taxpayers' dollars. I'm not sure that's actually the case, so we share the view that the federal government needs to revisit some of those master agreements for federal government procurement.
On the issue of what the federal government can do, though, with respect to its revenue sharing, the money it spends on municipal or local infrastructure, I think one of the biggest things the federal government could do to the better would be to end and prohibit any union-only preference policy that would exist at a more junior level of government, to ensure that any federal dollar is fully open so that any firm of any size, regardless of the structure it has for its staff—whether it's unionized or non-unionized—has equal access to the government procurement. We think it's fair.
Unionized firms of course should be as eligible to bid on government work as anyone else, but smaller and medium-sized firms that are not unionized should also have the ability to do that. In many, many cases in some of Canada's largest and medium-sized cities, that's just not the case today. That would be one of the areas where we feel it would be most effective to get a better bang for the buck.