Our organization welcomes that kind of scrutiny. To some extent, on the second round of P3 projects that we've seen over the last 10 years or so, it's too early in the game to do an objective assessment of that, because you're talking about the total life-cycle management cost. You're not just talking about capital costs. I think that's important.
I think it's also important to say that the reason projects go bad is not necessarily the delivery mechanism that they've chosen. Very often it's because one of the parties has not been as clear as they ought to have been in describing right from the get-go what it is they expected to get.
This goes back to an earlier question, if I may, about not being just a complete risk transfer. In a P3 project, I dare say the public sector owner is going to have their hands a little more full than being able to wash their hands and think that they're not going to get involved. You need a sophisticated owner for that kind of approach. You need an owner who through that mechanism can clearly describe what they're looking for so that the private sector can then bring the innovative solutions to achieve those challenges.
I do not believe that there is one particular delivery method that's worse than another or necessarily better. They are all well suited, as I said right up front, and when it comes to value for money, when it comes to the premium that may be otherwise pegged to go with a P3 project and the value you get back, I'm no economist, but I think all Canadians would welcome third-party objective, transparent methodologies to assess those projects.
What you are assessing is the 35- or 40-year life cycle, not just the acquisition costs.