Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for chairing this meeting so well.
I want to thank all of you for being with us here today.
I want to address perhaps a couple of issues, one for certain. I appreciated all of your submissions, but I'm going to touch upon a submission by the AUCC. I think they do a very good job of outlining the implementation of the S and T strategy.
You talk about four things: talent, for example the Vanier scholarships; the direct costs of research, through the granting councils; institutional or indirect costs of research; and research infrastructure, the best example being the CFI. A challenge for any government is that when you get agencies, councils, or others coming forward to you, they always present a very solid argument as to why that particular agency deserves more funding. It's a very tough choice that the government has to make in terms of allocating a ratio. So I'm going to put the AUCC on the spot, and others can comment if they want.
Suppose in the next budget—you can use whatever figure you want, $100 million or $1 billion—the government had that sort of fiscal room, say $100 million. At this stage in our R and D situation, what percentage would you put towards talent, what percentage towards direct costs, what percentage towards institutional, and what percentage towards research infrastructure?