Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Through you to the witnesses, thank you for attending today.
I'm grateful that you mentioned the risk aversion that governments have—and have for good reason. Number one, taxpayer dollars are very valuable to us. We care very much about what we're doing with them. We want to make sure that anything we do has positive outcomes. The second reason, of course, is rather obvious, because we're separated in the aisle. If we don't make good investments, we have an official opposition to put our feet to the fire, which in a democracy is not a bad thing.
That's why I think social impact bonds are a good thing, and for two reasons. Number one is that the government's not risking any of its own money, if the outcomes aren't appropriate, so there's someone else bearing the risk but also bearing the benefits. Tell me if you think I'm mistaken, but in the end, the real benefactors are the taxpayers, because not only are they not paying for a failed program or a program that's somewhat successful but they're also living in a better world. In other words, in our case, our study is social financing as it relates to crime prevention in Canada, so if we can reduce crime, we reduce....
A previous witness, who I think was an opposition witness, basically said that you need to measure more than just your outcomes; you need to measure basically the social impact. It's not just about reducing crime. It's about making your neighbourhood safer and better to live in, and therefore the quality of life of Canadians.
Would you say that's a correct statement? If you feel that you would like to expand on it, would you do so?