Yes, it is, and for a host of reasons. The concept of transfer of risk, when you're talking about the ownership being transferred in major urban centres, low risk of any type of downward movement in the economies of Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto.... This is not a scenario where someone built a building in a relatively small community to provide workspace for workers and needed guarantee of income flow. And it's also a situation where, quite frankly, the taxpayers of Canada will pay $2.6 billion to Larco Investments over the next 25 years. It hamstrings future governments for their priorities, and there's zero risk when you've paid less than half of what you're going to be paid over the period of 25 years with a 10% escalator clause every five years. So I would say that's significantly different.
On December 5th, 2007. See this statement in context.