I don't disagree with any of that. It's an issue of scale. There needs to be a lot of money at play to make people interested in doing these things. But it does trigger a thought in my mind.
Take as a given structural issues, such as life-cycle management and ensuring that maintenance is actually done on time and that sort of thing. If we take that as a given, as a problem with the way the public sector in Canada manages infrastructure, and given the fact that P3s are never going to be more than maybe 10% or 15%, even if the fantasy world of the P3 proponents descends on us, the way the market works means that there aren't enough projects big enough to consume that much more. It just seems to me that there's an enormous return to the public as a whole for making the way we manage, maintain, and operate infrastructure over a life cycle more effective. Even if I were to concede that those projects that are of interest to P3 proponents are going to go the P3 way, that doesn't eliminate the need to address the issues that underlie the argument for P3s.