Well, that's a lot. Thank you for the questions.
I think the most important response I can make to that is we absolutely saw that the best way for us to make use of government funding was to put it in places where we could amplify that funding by bringing in other sources of capital. That was what we were trying to do with the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Obviously by doing that, by bringing in other sources of capital, you have many of the impacts that you just asked about. You have the impact of lowering the likely costs to taxpayers because you've created a way to make it more efficient from a capital standpoint. By lowering the capital costs of projects, that has an impact over time on things like taxes and on other charges that might come to citizens.
You also do, of course, improve people's lives, whether it's through supply chain resiliency, as you say, or improve their lives through, just frankly, better infrastructure. Any of us facing challenges in getting around major cities knows that is critically important.
Finally, as you said, building infrastructure does have an impact on jobs. It often has impacts on jobs in places where there might not be as many other projects to impact jobs, because it can be in places that are fairly inconvenient to get to.
We saw all those as benefits of the focus on infrastructure. Importantly, the Canada Infrastructure Bank we saw as a way to depoliticize it and to bring forth different levels of government together so that we could all work constructively on helping people for the long term. I have to say that it was one of my most important reasons for thinking this was a good idea. It was a way to create long-term prosperity in a political system that too often focuses on the short term. Creating institutions like the Canada Infrastructure Bank, from that perspective, can be seen as a very good decision and a long-term positive for Canadians.