Perfect. I'll start answering the question and then turn to Stephanie, who will talk a bit about the due diligence we go through in terms of how we approach these kinds of agreements.
By and large, at the end of the day, it's about making an assessment of what risk the company is taking in making the investments and what their other options are in terms of where they can make the investments. We realize that we're operating in an environment where people and companies sometimes have choices in where the investments can take place. At the end of the day, that helps to inform the cost-sharing ratio that we're comfortable with and that is in the public interest to support, and that can vary from investment to investment. Then, obviously, importantly, related to that is really what you are trying to get in the public interest—what you are trying to secure in the public interest—from public investments in these types of endeavours.
Every SIF agreement, including autos, will always have job commitments. At the end of the day, fundamentally, we're looking to make sure that Canadians are employed through the things that we support with public funds. We ensure that there are always capex investments, a certain scale of investments that we're expecting from the company. That again is about leveraging our investments federally and from Ontario, so that they can leverage larger amounts in the private sector. There are R and D investments that are often standard in terms of what we're looking for. There are sometimes training, co-op and different elements, depending on the type of contract that's put in place and what we're trying to leverage to make sure we maximize the benefit we can get for Canada in the long term.
I think it's important—and I'll turn to Stephanie for just a few minutes—to explain a bit about the due diligence of how that relationship evolves so that, at the end of the day, we negotiate what we think is in the best interests of taxpayers and why we land where we do.