I believe the premier's point was that since March 1 there were 123 proposed and only three received approval. When we talk about a construction season in Saskatchewan that doesn't go too deep into the winter, I think that's the issue that was being highlighted.
I wanted to ask you a question. There have been numerous reports about trying to quantify the percentage of infrastructure dollars that go to what are traditionally considered actual infrastructure, such as types of roads, bridges, ports and water systems. Many analyses have shown that what is considered “social” infrastructure—spending on things that have traditionally not been included in the infrastructure envelope—may be worthwhile initiatives and may be filling needs, but usually have been captured in other areas. There's a sense that this government is trying to call a lot of things infrastructure and give it that label to give the sense that this type of spending does have a return on investment in terms of economic growth.
Does the department have any type of criteria that determines the different types of infrastructure spending it approves and that breaks down social versus what we might consider more traditional infrastructure projects?