Thank you. That is a good question.
The way you put that is interesting. I would say that you're correct, in that whether you call it a P3 or a design-build-finance-maintain project, ultimately it comes down to the contract terms. I think P3 is, in the end, just a label we put on it that signals that there is a financing component, that there is often an ongoing maintenance component, and that there are the upfront aspects.
What you've alluded to is whether there are other forms of contractor procurement you could undertake. If you look at the more traditional sorts of design-bid-build or design-build approaches that have been used, the P3 is a sort of enhanced model that has off-loaded risk and financing and other aspects that we've talked about.
Just to show you that there is flexibility, the CSEC approach was beyond even the normal design-build-finance-maintain that you've likely heard about and have been thinking about. What was added into it was the full provision of the IT services, in what is a very sophisticated, highly technical environment, of course. The IT delivery for the entire maintenance life-cycle period is included in it. Similarly, so are the security services that are required at one of the highest security facilities in the country.
Those are examples of how, even in what you might generally label as a P3, the contract form of procurement was uniquely modelled for the special needs of the project. I'm just using it as an example. There are opportunities to do this, and I think a good procurement authority and a good owner would plan that way and take advantage of these.
So we might call it a P3, but there are always differences in the contractual approach.