I will answer you as a person who works in the sector. We at the institute obviously have a more general viewpoint. We promote P3s. However, as you say, we do not do so at all costs because the P3 model does not apply to all projects. So that is how I would answer you.
As for the process used in Quebec to evaluate implementation methods, I would like to confirm that our comparison is not limited to P3s as regards design, construction, financing, maintenance and repair. We also look at all the methods that may apply to a project in order to find the one that is appropriate.
My experience has led me to work on projects in which we concluded that the design, construction, financing, maintenance and repair method was not appropriate. In those cases, it was inappropriate because we could not use that method to generate value in the implementation component.
One example was a project to expand an existing building. The expansion was apparently not to be done by constructing a new building that would have been linked to the existing building by a walkway. The plan was to integrate them floor by floor. If we had builder friends around the table, they would definitely be able to discuss the issue in greater detail.
So they would have had to open the building, construct the extension and integrate it floor by floor. The plan was also to expand the plant containing all the existing electromechanical equipment.
So the idea was to have a single plant that would have served the building as a whole. In the analysis, it was determined—