It's fair. I understand your point, and I agree with that. Ultimately, we're custodians of these buildings on behalf of Canadians. It's the same way when we carry out investments, we use taxpayers' money.
Going back to the point of governance, not to be too long about this, I think the first step, quite logically, is to look at the models out there, and there are quite a few where the ownership has been vested into the legislative branch of government. We have examples of that; it's been documented. I think Madam Fraser notes that, whether it's in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, or frankly even in a republican-type system like the United States, it's a bit of the same principle. So in order for one to manage correctly and set projects, the accountability should be in one area. It doesn't mean that it excludes discussions—far from it—but having one area where the accountability is squarely rooted is certainly helping decision-making in long-term investments.
As we look at the options--we're going to be looking at the various models--we are going to look at elements related to ownership, the point you make. What should the new entity look like, structurally speaking? Who should be part of that entity, the decision-making functions related to governance? Leadership--who should be in charge? Funding elements: how would that be thought through, how would that be challenged, how would that be set in place?
There's the issue of transparency. When we look at the models, most of them have a relationship with an auditor general equivalent, so there's transparency in how decisions are made, value for money, and things of that nature. On oversight, it's the same thing. And delivery and implementation: how will that be carried out?
So in a governance model, I'm not saying these are the only elements that should be considered, but it's quite important to be able go through these elements as options are being put forward and considered.