Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for all the detail, but there are times when the detail is important, so it's important for me to get that information out.

The bottom line is, if you look at the Fort Smith numbers, they are significantly lower than the Hay River numbers. If we went ahead and moved the small number of beds in Fort Smith, we would be reliving the same mistake we've made before, which is building facilities that are too small to gain real economies of scale, and it's going to cost us more money in the long run. Building 24-bed pods gives us the ability to get significant economies of scale, have a staffing model that makes more sense and is more logical, and gives us better bang for buck. I do remind the Member, however, that this is a 10-year window horizon we're looking in, but the problem goes beyond 2026 into 2034.

I would suggest, and I believe it would be appropriate, that in our next phase of planning we would be looking at communities like Fort Smith and those other communities where we aren't moving forward immediately. You know, in Norman Wells we've just built a new facility, and this is indicative of the problem we had, the day we opened we were four beds short. We need to have planning horizons; we need to plan appropriately; and we need to take advantage of economies of scale and models that give us best bang for buck. The model that we presented gives us best bang for buck. It does leave us open for Fort Smith in the next phase.