Mr. Chairman, if I could just supplement that, it is true that nobody involved in this exercise wanted the government's role to be diminished. Some of the early drafts of the task force report began each chapter with the phrase, “The government should”. Also, I think that no one was out to use this as a technique for increasing government's role.
The important point is that government, which now is exposed to contributing to certain social needs, is doing so on the basis of rote. It repeats a grant every year, because it made the grant last year, and the whole point that is additive here is that you can structure a commercially oriented social finance instrument so that the outcome that is desired is actually now measured and is actually now paid for. In that respect, there is a savings to government because, in the example that I used, government would pay less to incarcerate prisoners. There are many others where government would otherwise make the payment and that's being avoided by the intervention of an entity that was funded through a social finance type of investment.
We can just regard this as neutral to government in terms of the beating on their chest to provide more funds but also beneficial to government because it creates a private sector outcome type test for things that government does not now test for.