You're absolutely right. Independent audit studies that have looked at the P3 experiences have almost universally said this actually costs more and delivers less, whether they're cutting corners, whether they're reducing the wages of workers or whether it's the precarity of workers. What we do know is that we used to have a huge pool of capital to support infrastructure investment. It was called the Canada pension plan. That money was available at cost. Government bonds are lower than the normal prime interest rate. That's what supported municipalities, regions and provinces in the past.
However, the same mentality that said we have to commercialize every aspect of human interaction, said, well, you could get a better return on investment if you took the pension money and allowed it to swirl around the globe seeking a higher return on investment. Then you could say that we don't have enough money here, so we need to attract private investment. The return on investments are 10% to 15%. Last year, statistics show that profits were 18% of the entire gross domestic product of Canada.
If you're a private investor and you're looking to get 10% to 15%, instead of what you could have borrowed at 2% to 3% before the recent spike in inflation, that's a huge gap, and that money doesn't come out of nowhere. There is only one taxpayer. If you have to find a bunch more money to provide return on investment to shareholders and speculators, that's what happens. That's why the public is losing out in this P3 model, particularly when you add the maintenance and operation. We lose public control over public transit and so many other vital public utilities through this model.