There's always a danger in bringing a lot of people to the table and creating an expectation of collaboration on a go-forward basis. That said, I'm very keen.... Let me put it this way. The fact that everybody has been to the table and remains at the table and is prepared to invest their own resources, time and moneys toward commonly understood and advocated-for recommendations is a very significant addition, value-added, to whether a federal investment would be provided to this equation.
Essentially, federal dollars going to CCSA—because that's largely how we're funded—provide for a maximal national return. In fact, we can demonstrate that in other areas of the strategy. To not fund CCSA at this point in terms of a very specific—and Madam from the NDP asked earlier about what we required—would do two things. One, it would certainly lose the momentum of the partners who are prepared to move this thing forward. Second, it would risk a tremendous amount of duplication, lost connectivity, and the ability to leverage funds that are currently in the system now.
Ultimately, it has taken us a long time to get here and to have the clarity of where to go. It wasn't because there wasn't anything happening; there was a lot happening, but it wasn't connected. Being able to connect it now into a comprehensible whole that everybody can have a reasonable portion of is the role that Parliament created for us to play.
The funds that we would require to move that forward is what our partners have said they want from us. I think if we don't do it, there's a great risk that we'll be coming back to this committee in three or four years and having the same discussions all over again.