Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I want to distinguish between P3s and design-builds here. Projects over $50 million under the P3 policy; that's in Finance. I have issues with P3s, but if I have issues, I bring them to Finance. It's that $1-million to $50-million range. To me, that's Infrastructure's bread and butter, and if I am going to look at what has happened in the history of the North, as we have made a transition from design-bid-build to design-build and what that has done is there are only select firms that can bid on design-builds. I think the honorariums that we are giving out just aren't enough. Our northern architecture firms, our northern engineering firms, are deciding to avoid design-builds, because you have to be a very large firm to take on all of the risks that go into a design-build.
The design-bid-build process, I think, is exactly where we should be focussing on. It allows us to break projects up smaller. If we create an engagement department, something I think would be great, it allows us to have a little more flexibility with our architectural team to see what a community can actually do. As much as I hear you say, "Yes, it's a case-by-case basis, and we're looking at breaking up contracts," the only way that your words really reflect the actions on the ground is in policies. Absent those policy changes happening, I guess what I would be looking for from the Minister is, this is a big debate, but I think there is a lot of work to be done in that $1- to $50-million range. I would be looking for the Department of Infrastructure, which it can, because this is where that lies -- if the Minister of ITI was here, we could also amend BIP, because they work hand-in-hand -- to create a policy that says, "We prefer design-bid-builds." Because, to me, that is what has been killing a lot of the small contractors in the North. Would the Minister be willing to do that? Thank you, Madam Chair.