Okay.
The current problem is that the position always seems to be to say that P3s will be a magic bullet. However, P3s only started to be developed in Canada in the 1990s and, as you mentioned, there were a lot of problems.
It seems problematic to me that such a firm position is being taken, according to which P3s are a panacea. I heard you say that we had to be careful and that they weren't applicable in all cases. I think that is very good, as a matter of fact. Moreover, we need an adaptation period.
My problem is that I don't know what we will end up with at the end of the contract. At the end of the day, no matter what is said, the risk is still taken on by the public. Unless I am mistaken, we will be the ones who end up paying for the mistakes that will be made. Having a much more modest approach would be greatly appreciated, because after all it is our money being managed.
I don't know if you have comments on that.