The risk of projects going over budget and of delays, basically. What happens is by bundling construction and design and then having finance there, what the government does is it transfers the risk of project cost overruns so that if something happens and the cost of that escalates, in theory the private sector is supposed to manage that risk.
We've seen a couple of examples of that here in Ontario where projects have had cost overruns. We had one, the Windsor-Essex parkway, where the private sector contractor put in a set of 300 girders that weren't up to Canadian standards. They negotiated. They had a discussion and a debate about it, and ultimately the private sector party had to pay to replace those and by all accounts—at least as far as what has been publicly reported—the government is not paying more for that. That's what I mean by risk transfer. There's also the risk of projects being delayed. Delay is a major issue too and the record is pretty good on that as well.
We are seeing some level of success there, of effective construction through these, and that's why I would advocate design-build-finance. I think that bundle is quite effective. The longer term operation and maintenance, that is where the real costs, especially of the finance, start to come in and government starts to lose flexibility.