Okay, thank you. Maybe I'll just correct the one statement, then.
There was an inference that this is a government directive. I sit on the public accounts committee, as our chair has as well. I also sit on the finance committee. The basic duties are oversight and accountability, and as such we are mandated by the Auditor General in making recommendations to these committees as to how a government should best do its job. One of the recommendations that the Auditor General brought forward was to have systematic, strategic reviews of departments. That is in place. The government has initiated that, and those departments are mandated to do periodic reviews. That just happens as a normal course of action based on the recommendations of the Auditor General. Those recommendations have been implemented and we do that.
I'm located in proximity to the prison farms. I certainly understand the local concerns and the costs and benefits to local communities, which of course is another factor that we definitely have to take into account. But I think primarily there are two concerns. One is securing an inmate. The second concern, of course, is the rehabilitation—is it cost-efficient, is it effective, and do we have the most successful form of placement? I think that's the crux of the argument here, the crux of the information that has been brought forward, and really it's going to come down to that particular decision with all the local information and—