Let's begin with transparency. When we make an investment with provinces or municipalities, we have to publish the value added study, which compares the costs of the traditional model with those of the PPP model. That analysis has to be published.
How can we avoid the difficulties experienced by the United Kingdom? We can do that by conducting a value added analysis for each project and by ensuring that the reason someone is proposing a PPP is not to avoid budgetary constraints. Accountability requirements in Canada are different from those in Europe.
We estimate the costs. There is a way to assess the return on investment. There are actually two kinds of returns on investment in a project. The first has nothing to do with PPPs. Building a bridge will create economic benefits. However, if the project is constructed based on a traditional model, the economic benefits of that bridge will be there because the bridge will be there. Our comparison is meant to determine whether it is more efficient to carry out those projects based on a PPP model or on a traditional model.
We assess the costs of the traditional model. There is a way to analyze the costs of a traditional model, including risks, and to assess PPPs. That can be done in the beginning, with the estimates. That can also be done once the private sector's proposals have been received so as to ensure that those proposals are less expensive than the traditional model. If that is not the case, no investment is made. Our recommendation would be not to go ahead with the project. The analysis of such factors is a discipline onto itself.
Have I answered all your questions?