The real benefit here to the public part of the P3 partnership is that you don't necessarily bear all the upfront costs. They are spread out over 25 or 30 years, whatever it is, whereas the infrastructure bank.... I'm not going to call it a bank, because I don't think it's a bank. It's the infrastructure entity. By putting $35 billion into that entity, there is a strong likelihood that the taxpayer will become a public partner in some of these projects going forward. As Matti—and I'm going to call you Matti—rightly pointed out, these are the big gambles, and you're going to be deciding whether you take a political gamble or not. So you are gambling with public money in the infrastructure agency concept versus the P3, where there frankly isn't a gamble. It's a set contract, and you pay for it over 25 years.
Matti, would that be a fair way of assessing the differential?