Well, very often it's because of the additional risks or incentives that are in the contract. You may have a situation.... For example, if you have 18 high schools bundled, you must deliver those all at the same time and at the same opening date, and you take on the risk of any delay, no matter where the delay's coming from, whether it's a delay that is in your control or not.
We'll be honest: the private sector has one way of dealing with that risk, and that's to throw money at it. I am sure that faced with that kind of situation, you will try to mitigate the risk by ensuring that you can control anything you can, but at the end of the day you want to make sure that you don't lose your shirt.
So yes, the penalties can be pretty stiff, but at the same time this methodology gives you the ability, as part of the finance closing, etc., to ensure that you have done what you need to do as a private sector partner to ensure that.
Now, given the fact that the consortium also is going to be responsible for that asset over a 30-year life, everything that the Edmonton public school board gentleman said is absolutely bang on. You're going to ensure that for the 30 years or 35 years that you have this, you haven't set yourself up for a drain on your purse either. You're going to want to make sure that the school is properly designed and properly built, so that the maintenance and operation of that facility isn't a burden. Therefore there is that added incentive as well, because you are going to be controlling the maintenance and management of the facility.
I want to make a quick comment. I wish all of our major capital projects went through that kind of discipline and regimen to ensure that what we were going to do for the next 30 years had been thought out. It's one thing to say that we have a budget overrun with the initial capital cost; that means nothing in terms of a 30-year or 35-year life cycle.