I think one of our concerns in some cases is that public funds leverage other moneys for whatever. I think the Peterborough example has been held up in a number of ways, and if the analyst could find out the latest on where the Peterborough model is at because if the third year of funding is to be dropped by the government then it does have an impact, and it could affect other similar models going forward.
One of my concerns...and we need to look at all models in a positive light, all alternatives, whether it's social finance, national crime prevention strategy, whatever it might be, and anything they could do. LaVar's question, and one of your responses is that there are quite a number of foundations—Tim Hortons is an example—and organizations with money that do good work for the social cause of preventing crime, or assisting lower-income groups, whatever. The social bond in my view is an entirely different approach.
It's an approach whereby people with money can be assured of a return if there are results, and it does turn the thing on its head. I'm not against it, but I want to know if there's any way we can find out what the implications are. Will it reduce funding in other areas for social causes? Is there a risk there? Your model is entirely different. The government is saying you'll get a 10% return if it's this result, or a higher return if it's a better result; you get no return if.... It's a completely different concept from what we're used to. What are your thoughts?