P3 projects make sense where you can demonstrate that the value for money for taxpayers is better than preceding with more traditional design-bid-build approaches. There are several advantages of a public-private partnership, but the principal advantage comes back to the point that Mr. Cullen was making earlier, which is that if you put in place a public-private partnership that includes life-cycle maintenance of the facility and requires the private sector entity to assume responsibility for that maintenance over the period of 30 to 35 years, you may still have roads and bridges that are degrading, but it will be the responsibility of those consortia to make the repairs, to meet the obligations of the contract, and furthermore to assume the cost.
If you have a look at the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, that bridge, of course, is now in need of serious repair. In fact, it's going to be replaced. It was initially built as a traditional project. As you know, the Government of Canada is moving ahead on an accelerated basis to replace that bridge with a public-private partnership model, which will put the onus on the private sector consortium to ensure that it is maintained over the 30 to 35 years of that contract, to a standard that was agreed to at the outset of that contract. It puts the onus and responsibility on the private sector, and it holds the public sector exempt from those costs that normally end up being assumed by governments when projects are procured in the more traditional way.