The Member has been involved in this for a while. There was a report done after the original program shut down. I have heard the Member in this House say that we need to duplicate that program with a few amendments that were identified in that report. That is what we moved for in the RFP. That is what the Member and others encouraged me to do. I did as the Member suggested. It didn't prove to have any value because nobody applied on the RFP. We went to some stakeholders and got a few amendments on how we thought people wanted this to go, once again potential proponents. It also bore no fruit. Then we went to other stakeholders who hadn't expressed interest, and we started to get their input. This is based on the wishes of the Member, who has continually raised this issue. We have done what the Member has asked us to do, and we will continue to make sure that this program is effective.

On the last round, I said, "We are going to move. We are going to design something." At that point, the stakeholders, our partners, the people who want to be part of the solution said, "Before we do that, we should really talk to our clients to figure out exactly what it is they want as opposed to what has been delivered in the past, which did not work," which was in the RFP which was built on a report that was prepared based on what had previously been done, which did involve some input from stakeholders. The Member obviously appears to be upset that we are not making progress. We have been responsive to the Member. I am as frustrated as she is that it is not done, but the reality is, if we are going to do it, we need to do it right, and we are getting it done, Mr. Speaker.