Okay.
Certainly, from what I've heard through the course of this study and otherwise, I'm personally of the view that there are a number of reasons why we could and should move towards social finance types of models. I'll quickly focus on five of them, and I'd like to ask for your thoughts.
First, I think it can unleash new and additional capital in the social service area. Second, I think that capital has the ability to be recycled over and over as opposed to the current grant and contribution process that puts the money out the door once but doesn't create a sustainable funding model for organizations. Third, it can allow innovation to flourish. Many witnesses have come before us and told us that through these models there's more flexibility once the program has begun, because it's focused more on impact than on outcomes and not so much on just the process or just how many participants were involved. Fourth, there's the idea of cross-sector collaboration, which I think happens to some extent currently, but, we've been told, that could certainly expand under this model. Last but certainly not least, there's a strong focus on measuring the impact and the outcomes in a more concrete way, and I think that is in line with what you've indicated it's important that we do. We've certainly heard from some of the officials we've had here that much of the evaluation currently being done is being done by surveying participants on their views on the program rather than through concrete metrics. In my view, that's something that needs to be improved.
I think, certainly, the last couple of factors I mentioned were things you seemed to indicate were important, and you mentioned those factors in your report.
Would you agree with these five benefits? Would you see them as being beneficial and could you see the idea of social finance models based on those benefits being helpful towards achieving those kinds of benefits?