If you're going to do something in an area, there should be rider in the policy, I would suggest, that says so long as the price is within 10% perhaps, the net benefits that accrue to the region mean it's still worthwhile spending the money in that region rather than letting it be supplied somewhere else for $1.80.

Question No. 63 Mr. Robert Oliphant: With respect to the official provider of uniforms and clothing for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games: (a) what was the selection process; (b) which companies submitted bids to provide these products to Canadian athletes and the Canadian public; (c) how was the decision made to select the Hudson’s Bay Corporation as the provider of official uniforms and clothing; (d) what consideration was provided for the selection of a Canadian owned company to provide the clothing; (e) what consideration was provided to companies who would manufacture the products fully in Canada; (f) what rationale can be provid ...[+++]ed for the selection of a foreign owned company who will produce the products outside of Canada; and (g) in the future, will there be an attempt from the government to further support the Canadian industry in the selection process for future Canadian Olympic clothing by selecting a Canadian company who will manufacture their product in Canada?

47. Takes note of the Council's decision of 17 June 2010 to leave it up to Member States to set, in cooperation with the regions, their national targets for reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and exclusion on the basis of one or several of the three indicators agreed upon by the Council; considers that Member States using only the ‘jobless household’ indicator may systematically neglect problems such as in-work poverty, energy poverty, the poverty of single parents, child poverty and social exclusion; urges Member Stat ...[+++]es not to abuse the freedom to choose their indicator to achieve less ambitious anti-poverty targets; draws attention to the problems faced by millions of European pensioners whose pensions are inadequate in making ends meet and covering the particular needs associated with age, owing especially to the high cost of medicines and medical treatment; stresses that school and university education for the most vulnerable groups must be a priority target in connection with which each Member State must set targets;

50. Takes note of the Council’s decision of 17 June 2010 to leave it up to Member States to set, in cooperation with the regions, their national targets for reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and exclusion on the basis of one or several of the three indicators agreed upon by the Council; considers that Member States using only the ‘jobless household’ indicator may systematically neglect problems such as in-work poverty, energy poverty, the poverty of single parents, child poverty and social exclusion; urges Member Stat ...[+++]es not to abuse the freedom to choose their indicator to achieve less ambitious anti-poverty targets; draws attention to the problems faced by millions of European pensioners whose pensions are inadequate in making ends meet and covering the particular needs associated with age, owing especially to the high cost of medicines and medical treatment; stresses that school and university education for the most vulnerable groups must be a priority target in connection with which each Member State must set targets;