Like Mr. Reid, I share some concerns about the size, but I've not been sitting on those committees and it's not for us to stick an oar in at this point.
Obviously, we're going to be operating with the new phase one of the visitor centre for at least a decade. So the capacity thing for security and for visitors must already be solved or we wouldn't be able to operate for 10 years just with that portion of it operating. We're operating with committee rooms. All those things are operating for the next decade.
I have questions about whether the necessity of that visitor centre being of that size has been a proven point. I guess it all comes back to what our priorities are here. My priority is that it be a treed site and that the work start on that essentially.
When you talked about the studies for the tree, you said an interesting thing we hadn't heard before. I'd like to know how many of those studies were premised on the tree having to move, because that's what you actually said to us, that the tree was studied for moving not for preservation.
Do we have any studies that asked what it would take to preserve that tree on site? It doesn't sound as if we do.