We have not done a detailed costing, but we have operated on the premise that we spend enough money now. We believe these can be done. It's a change of focus, just like we're talking about in terms of health care. The costs keep rising. We know we have to curtail the rising costs. We have to put more money into prevention, just as we need to here as well.
We need to refocus. There's a lot of money out there: $150 billion goes to individuals. Some of that's pensions and stuff like that, but a lot of it is social assistance. But it's all designed to give individuals a decent standard of living. We believe in a refocusing of that money.
I gave you an example where the Premier of Alberta said that giving people a home with supports would cost about $35,000, compared to $100,000 to keep them on the street, because shelter costs are high, or they go to emergency rooms at hospitals, or they're in and out of the criminal justice system or have addictions. There are all sorts of problems that they carry with them. Well, why wouldn't you take the $35,000 instead of the $100,000? That's obviously an improvement to the public purse.
We found statistics like that in the rest of the country as well. So by changing the focus, the committee doesn't think we need additional money.
There's also going to be transitional money, transitional as you go from one system to another, but at the end of the day, we'll save an enormous amount of money: $30 billion in costs in health care and lost productivity. That's an awful lot of money.