Maybe we are moving ahead on it. I think the issues list needs to be developed with some background on it based on what we've heard and all of ours, so we aren't just cherry-picking some issues here. I think the researchers can provide us with some of those options to look at, maybe in a little more comprehensive a way than what we have right here, and list the issues.
The other one I'm not sure about is who determines the location. When I say “issues list”, I think we need to be pretty comprehensive about those things we go through, to make sure we've hit all of them, that take us to the implementation process, to that gate. Then I'm not sure what happens at that gate.
Maybe somebody can help me. Once we go through this and present our report, do we have a say in the implementation at all in terms of the number of people? I think then we turn it over to the administration and say, we think now you need to come to us with a report on the implementation process of it. I'm not so sure why they can't dovetail, so that we are not doing one and then waiting to do the other.
I really think that if we wanted to actually move ahead as a committee, we could follow through with the researchers on this early part of it, from the issues and options list that we can go down, and then at the same time we can have the ministry prepare how they see the implementation. They give us a document based on how they see the implementation and costing. They're the ones who are going to give us the budget, as mentioned by Brent.
Do they have recommendations of where, too? I don't think we should just be cherry-picking on personal venues of where it should go. I think we should have some background from veterans and actual research that tells us where it should go. Some of those things need to come in terms of that implementation.
I don't know. I'd ask, Mr. Chairman, for the committee's comments on that.