Do you want to go first this time, Laura, or do you want me to dive in? Okay, I'll dive in.
With “off the shelf”, in terms of there already being pieces of the puzzle in place, I'm going to go back to what Laura said in her opening remarks. There are a few different lanes.
If you want to qualify programs that do all of those things, like one-stop shopping, you have Wounded Warriors that brings in programs to do that, but so does ADI. You can have something in place that can help you to understand that dogs coming out of certain programs are fully qualified, legitimate dogs.
Where the challenge comes in is the team end of it. For dogs that aren't coming out of programs where it is more easy to put standards in place and hold them to accountability, where I think I've seen, in this space, things get difficult are when people aren't going through programs like mine or like Laura's. They don't have guidelines or a mechanism to qualify their dogs legitimately for doing the good work.
I think for you guys, it's twofold. There's one lane that's service-provider oriented and another one that's owner-trained oriented, because they are a section of your constituency that is demanding access to Veterans Affairs and the greater community. Currently, they're under-represented. It's not my job—I don't service those folks—but that is from the standards board piece that I was party to. They have to be dealt with separately. The standards we have for programs do not cross over well into dealing with individuals.
The outcome standards that Laura referenced for the teams is what we are working on at CGSB to address that. It is sitting on a shelf in Ottawa, and it's darned good. We did good work on that. Medric's not wrong.