I think Mr. Atkinson is being a little dramatic. What we realize is that internationally this is not new. We have been doing community benefit agreements. In Canada, if we go back to the 2010 Olympics, these have been community-industry-government partnerships that have actually created greater value for existing purchasing. In terms of how do we measure, it's very easy. We've been able to create metrics around social return on investment that reflect things such as added hours and how much value has been put into local procurement and local employment, or employment for people with barriers. These are not unmeasurable things; these are very measurable things.
I think another thing we can be very clear about is that these are not added costs. These are costs within the contract. So when we think about a project that is going to happen, how do we best look at where we purchase and how we purchase materials that we need, and where are we going to procure them from? Will it be chosen from a local supplier or will it be imported? Is there going to be employment and subcontracting to whomever is the lowest, most efficient, and everything else, which includes a social benefit? I think the examples we know of are not added costs, they're added benefits, and they're driven when government in a contract just merely asks that question: along with price, along with quality, what is the social value that you are going to bring in this bid? It's fair, it's open, it's transparent. The use of a prescribed measurement metric along the criteria of what is the price competition, what is the quality of competition, what is the environmental impact, and what is the social impact, is all fair, transparent, and clearly measurable.