Yes. Our argument is to use evidence-informed practices that have been proven to be effective to reach the objectives and provide individuals with a better quality of life, and that are cost effective or cost neutral as well. In the study we released about a month ago, we identified nine of those.
I'll give you a good example. In Quebec, they ran a long-term suicide prevention program that was determined to be more efficient and less costly than doing nothing.
It prevented 171 deaths.
It also contributed to saving people in almost 4,000 suicide attempts.
For children, we have the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program in Ontario. In terms of cost, it provides, over the long term, a return on the investment and better outcomes for the children and their families.
What we're trying to convey is that there are wonderful activities taking place in provinces and territories. It would be critical to validate those approaches and to then use them across the country, because they are validated and they have demonstrated that they're efficient. They lead to better outcomes for children, their families, and others. Also, they're cost neutral or they provide a return on investment.