P3s are a slightly different form of contract. There's actually a project agreement that exists between the public-private partnership entity, which has no assets, and the particular owner. In this case it could be Defence Construction, by way of example. That entity then contracts with the general contractor.
The prompt payment legislation as written doesn't recognize that relationship. It has the lenders concerned, because they don't have direct visibility into the payment scheme as they would under a traditional, non-prompt payment piece of legislation.
The simple answer is they think their security is at risk. Ontario shifted the definition inside a P3 contract, the project agreement, to have the general contractor take the upfront piece when it comes to prompt payment.
It's not a lot of language. It's about five or six clauses, but it would work very neatly inside this particular bill. It's proven, and there was a lot of heated debate in Ontario when Bill 142 was passed. In fact, the lenders were not going to play. There was a big sit-down with the Attorney General and the drafters to dissect the agreement inside a P3 arrangement. When everybody understood the problems, the answers came out fairly quickly and were then incorporated into the final piece of legislation, which is now law.