On the question of the structure of agreements, I can speak to the two from the RCMP and the Communications Security Establishment Canada. Both of those projects have significant private sector capital at risk. The project agreements involve no payments to the private sector until the project is complete and certified by an independent engineer. So all of their money is at risk. No federal money is at risk until they have delivered. If something happened in the course of those projects—it hasn't yet—it would be first the equity investors and then the debt investors who would be responsible for remediating the situation, or they would lose their money and the federal government would take over the asset and would not have paid a nickel into the project.
That is why it's important for these types of contractual structures to be well established. Private sector capital is at risk. That is what underpins the discipline for performance and actually ensures that risk is transferred. Some people call something a P3, but if there isn't significant private sector capital at risk, then I would argue it's not really a P3. It would be an outsourcing relationship. There are lots of contractual relationships that governments have with the private sector, and some people broaden the definition of P3 to include those. My view is that something is a P3 only when there is significant private sector capital at risk; otherwise it's a P2.