—that I was looking at it from the standpoint of reducing the cost to society.
I want to ask you, Mr. Butler, if you can recall how back in the eighties we looked at the Bronx in New York, which was a terrible place to live; a terrible place to live. What was happening was that with “the projects”, as their social housing was called, including in the Bronx, the City of New York wanted to do something about it. At the same time, of course, their crime rate was skyrocketing. They looked at what caused criminality, and there were three things: literacy; that people who commit crimes don't own property; and that criminals who commit bigger crimes commit little crimes, even jaywalk. That's when, as you'll recall, they were picking up jaywalkers. That was a terrible thing, but they were actually solving a lot of crime because of it.
So they educated people. They gave them a trade. With the trade, they helped them buy their apartments. When they bought their apartments, they really looked down on their neighbours who tried to damage those apartments, because now they owned them. You had a reduction in crime, and now, in some areas of the Bronx, there are good places to live.
I wonder if you could translate that into what you would perceive as an impact bond in, let's say, some of the social housing areas of Canada, where we know, especially in the GTA, that a lot of crime exists.