Thank you very much for your question.
In our view, based on the evidence we have seen on public projects and public investment, there's no question that community benefits have been an incredible driver for dealing with income inequality, but equally in dealing with the diversity of those who sometimes may not have the opportunity to become part of that sector.
It's not only for the workers who might get an apprenticeship, or a woman who might get an apprenticeship, but it's also for those small businesses that are trying to leverage an opportunity to access the business at the same time as these projects are operating.
The reality, of course, is that community benefits have been an enormous driver in dealing with inequality, providing access to many workers who would not have an opportunity—especially young people, women and aboriginal people—to get an apprenticeship program and, given the duration of these projects, not only to start an apprenticeship program, but also to complete the program in the process of those investments.
I think it's critical. These are government investments and, to a large extent, we have seen, with the evidence that we've been able to look at, that workers in those communities can benefit enormously from community benefits being attached to those projects. Equally, in the places where money is invested—and this is taxpayers' money—we have seen new opportunities for people who quite often have not had that option before. It is critical to maintain a way to measure how that benefit has significantly impacted and benefited the community at large, but equally who has benefited in the community specifically.
Racialized workers, aboriginal workers and women workers are the ones to target, the ones the help should go to. It's important to get both the employer and the project management to document how the community benefit has shown progress in bringing into the sector groups that may not have had the opportunity prior to that.