I'll add my comments, Monsieur Gourde. Thank you for the question.
I agree there is a lot of experience in writing contracts to share and transfer risks. I think Canada has benefited from some of the early mistakes that were made in other markets, notably Australia and the U.K.
Going back to a point that John made earlier regarding what is a front line service, one of the areas that has been contentious in the U.K. market is the inclusion of soft services in social infrastructure PPPs. I'm talking here about, within hospitals, say, catering and housekeeping services.
In Canada I think we've learned that message. I don't know of any projects since the very early ones in 2003, in Ontario and Alberta, where there has been any transfer of soft services. The model has developed in such a way that government recognizes what is a good risk to transfer, what is a good responsibility to transfer, to the private sector so that it retains front line services.
I think the model across Canada generally has adopted a prudent and socially acceptable level of risk transfer that is widely accepted. It's avoiding some of those mistakes that were made in the U.K. and that have attracted criticism.
On the question about sharing risk as opposed to transferring risk, I think we're getting down into the detail as to what risk it is. There are many risks within contracts that are shared, so potentially there is a range of exposure that the private sector takes and a range that the public sector takes. There are other risks where it's absolutely proper to fully transfer.
I think the detail of the model allows for both sharing and transfer, depending on what that specific risk might be.