I'm happy to respond, if that's okay.
Mr. Larose, thank you very much for your question. I'll do my best to answer it, but I do not have specific knowledge of the A-25 project in Quebec, so I can't speak to the details of that.
In the case of many of these projects, quoting individual numbers is inevitably misleading and I can't respond to any of the numbers that you mentioned. Comparisons are sometimes made between construction costs, including risks. Sometimes there are inclusions of long-term maintenance costs, whether the costs are provided in current-day dollars or whether they are provided on a real basis. There are numerous ways in which the numbers can be used to mislead, so I wouldn't attempt to justify whether your assertion is correct or not. However, I would comment on one point, which is that there is no guarantee that nothing will fall apart on the bridge.
However, there is a guarantee that the private sector partner has put a substantial amount of money into the project, which is guaranteeing his obligations to maintain it in a specified condition for a specified period of time and to ensure that, when it is transferred back to the management of the public, at that time it will be in a specified condition. The private sector has that obligation. It cannot walk away. If this were a traditional contract or a design-build contract, the private sector partner could walk away. Very often private sector companies go bankrupt and they disappear. Then you have no long-term hold on the performance of that asset.
In the case of a P3, you do have that money--