One of the concerns I have and that I wanted to ask you about, too, is how you bring more clarity to this issue. I'm not against new concepts. I think it's a wonderful idea, but I believe it was you who said earlier that investors will go to where the easiest return on investment is, basically, or something along those lines.
My concern is in terms of crime prevention in the country as a whole and the leadership required from the federal government in that area. We have to relatively ensure—you can't be absolute—that crime prevention in some of the northern communities is as good as it is in the bigger communities like Vancouver and Calgary, where there is more money and there are more investors, and versus P.E.I. as well, where I'm from.
How do you ensure that under this system? I do think there's a real danger here. The federal government is saying that we don't need a national crime prevention program anymore, that the private investors will look after that. Then you'll have a patchwork quilt of programs across the country.
I'll ask both witnesses this: how do you wage against that happening?