Thank you.
That pretty much brings us to the end of this round of questions.
I have a couple.
When we first began the study, we had government officials as our witnesses, and later we had others from the supply side, the Royal Bank and others. You can look at our witness list to understand this. I think it was pretty clear from the start the way many of those individuals from the supply side, not the demand side, viewed this as another option for financing in addition to what governments already do.
I come from a business background, in which you look at the need for working capital to do certain projects. Where does that money come from? I know many organizations in my riding are frustrated because they have no access to working capital from the government. They have a certain allotment to carry out programming. Year after year they find out far too late whether these funds are locked down for them, so they're always scrambling at the end.
In some ways, social financing augments those existing programs, which I think most of our witnesses envisage not stopping, not changing, and not being taken away, because the government is always trying to reduce the cost of delivery, but it is another vehicle.
I'm intricately involved in some organizations in my community that are totally frustrated in trying to get projects, such as housing for intellectually disabled individuals, off the ground.
In that context, can I have your comments on whether you think, going forward, that social financing is a useful vehicle to add to or augment what governments already do?
If the three of you would like to comment on that, we'll wrap up after that.