Thank you for your question, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Because of the way we've structured the management of our science--and it's very complex--in our department, as I mentioned, we have priority management boards that actually decide on the science projects themselves each year. We have found that while that is a very effective way of focusing our efforts on departmental priorities, it's not a very effective way of managing the people and the long-term capacity of the science within the department.
So we have a science branch that manages the people and we have results management boards that manage the results. Within the science branch that manages the people, we try to analyze. You are correct that these are broad areas, but the science plan indicates that we need to maintain and grow our capacity to do and to function in these broad areas.
So the science plan is meant to guide. I'm sorry I didn't bring it. I should have brought it and tabled it for the committee. It has a section on our priorities, and it talks about the priorities of the boards. It also has a section on how we manage our science, and how we will ensure we have the capacity in the future to meet the needs of the boards, which is done as a separate exercise through this science plan.
That's what I was trying to say with that last section. I had only very brief comments, and it's hard to actually get into details. Managing the science community as a community to ensure that you have the capacity, infrastructure, etc., to be able to carry out the job is quite different from managing for results in the short term. So we found that we had to separate them. The plan is meant to guide one and the results boards are meant to guide the other.