Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all our guests for being here today.
Mr. Légaré, I very much enjoyed your presentation. I am thinking about what you said and also in what you did not say.
Both of us are from Quebec and we are very familiar with the controversy around this topic. As you know, the previous provincial government relied extensively on P3s but became more timid towards the end of its mandate. A P3 agency established by the previous government was abolished. Then there was the creation of Infrastructure Québec, which decided to view P3s as a tool like any other.
You cited examples of P3 achievements, such as highway rest stops. You forgot to say that a $10 million lawsuit has been filed in that matter. You also did not say that parties had backed down from certain P3 projects, such as the Hôtel-Dieu de Québec project in 2009.
Ms. Mullen could answer my question. The evaluations that have been conducted always refer to a benefit that the implementation of a P3 project provides. People always compare the conventional model and the P3 method, obviously forgetting to say that there are also intermediate models.
I am more familiar with the Quebec public service, but I can say that there has been a loss of internal expertise. Consequently, the conventional method is becoming more costly. I would like to hear your opinion on the various elements involved in evaluating P3 projects. At what point do you, personally, and the Institut pour le partenariat public-privé say that this is not really a good project?