Sure.
The purpose of this study, as far as I would advise, is that there is a history of experience in investing in infrastructure. It has different forms, different shapes, and different sizes, but in all of that there are lessons learned. There are lessons learned about how to go about the process of investing in infrastructure, about the quantum, about the kinds of collaboration that were acquired, and all with the intention of making the Canadian economy as strong and competitive as it can be and the Canadian communities environmentally sustainable as they can be.
To me, the purpose statement is that the experience has led us in lessons learned. What are those lessons learned? What is that going to tell us about the future investments in infrastructure? What's the best way to go about investing in infrastructure so that the different actors can work most effectively together and use the money most efficiently to the benefit of Canadian communities?
I think the metrics would be something sometimes as simple as job creation, the metrics that one would employ to assess economic competitiveness and growth, local economic development, and the metrics around environmentally sustainable communities and managing an environmental footprint at the local level that would be appropriate for a country of our wealth.