Thank you. That's a very good question and an interesting one, and it allows me to explain a bit more, and probably a bit better, why we did that report.
This report, as you pointed out, is written differently because it's meant to be a companion to something that we released at the same time, which is a tool on our website intended for parliamentarians and their staff, and also for Canadians. It allows them to look at what happens if you increase or decrease some military capabilities, how much it costs and how much it requires in additional personnel, both in direct capabilities but also the indirect capabilities—for example, field hospitals, if you want to increase the army—and also the overhead costs that are accompanied by these increased or decreased military capabilities.
That's why we wanted to have that tool. We wanted parliamentarians to have that capacity to look at the impacts of varying 21 military capabilities. That's something that's not available right now from DND, so we wanted to have that tool available for parliamentarians so that they can play with the various capabilities.
It's not perfect, by any means. It's based on historical data, the most recent data from the past six years. We looked at that and we reconciled all these various objects by line item and made that fit into the 21 capabilities—direct, indirect and overhead—so that parliamentarians and Canadians can have an idea as to the costs and the military personnel required, or freed up, if you vary the capabilities. For example, for direct regiment capability, how much more or less money is needed directly to support them, as well as the personnel and also the costs?