I've studied that pretty closely, and certainly I think the vast majority of the criticism in the U.K. has been about the service delivery. I think that's not so much the maintenance of the actual infrastructure itself, but the other associated services. As I mentioned earlier, I think the Canadian provinces that have been most active in procurement of P3s have all avoided including soft services, except for, I think, Abbotsford hospital in B.C., and the William Osler hospital in Ontario.
I think that in all of the other projects the only services included are those that are very directly related to maintaining the fixed infrastructure. That's probably the most clear way Canada has avoided some of those problems. I'm not aware that there's significant criticism about maintenance budgets. On the contrary, the research I'm aware of seems to very strongly support that there is a fixed allocated budget to maintain the infrastructure in a far more planned and controlled way than is typically done with publicly owned infrastructure.