Bill C-284 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants)

This enactment amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to add provisions respecting the availability of Canada access grants to students with permanent disabilities and students from low-income families, and repeals similar provisions set out in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations. The availability of grants for low-income students is extended from the first year of study to all years.

Motions in Amendment

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-284 be amended by restoring the title as follows:

“An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants)”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-284 be amended by restoring clause 1 as follows:

“1. The Canada Student Financial Assistance Act is amended by adding the following after section 14:

CANADA ACCESS GRANTS

14.1 (1) The Minister, an appropriate authority or a body authorized by the Minister for a province, may make a Canada access grant to a qualifying student if the student

(a) has a permanent disability;

(b) meets the criteria set out in subsection 12(1); and

(c) is not denied further student loans under section 15 of the regulations.

(2) To receive a grant under this section, a qualifying student shall provide, with the loan application, proof of their permanent disability in the form of

(a) a medical certificate;

(b) a psycho-educational assessment; or

(c) documentation proving receipt of federal or provincial disability assistance.

(3) The amount of all grants made under this section to a qualifying student in a loan year shall not exceed the lesser of

(a) the qualifying student’s assessed need; and

(b) $2,000.

14.2 (1) The Minister, an appropriate authority or a body authorized by the Minister for a province, may make a Canada access grant to a qualifying student if the student

(a) meets the criteria set out in subsection 12(1)

(b) is enrolled as a full-time student in a program of studies of at least two years that leads to a degree, certificate or diploma at a designated educational institution;

(c) first enrolled in that program within four years after leaving secondary school;

(d) has never previously been enrolled in a program of studies; and

(e) is a person in respect of whom a national child benefit supplement, or a special allowance under the Children’s Special Allowances Act, is payable or would be payable if the person was less than eighteen years of age.

(2) The amount of a grant made under this section to a qualifying student in a loan year shall not exceed the least of

(a) the qualifying student’s assessed need;

(b) 50% of the student’s tuition; and

(c) $3,000.

(3) In this section, “national child benefit supplement” means that portion of a child tax benefit determined under the description of C in subsection 122.61(1) of the Income Tax Act.

14.3 (1) The Minister shall pay to the appropriate authority or other body authorized by the Minister for a province the amount the authority or other body requires to make Canada access grants to qualifying students for a loan year under section 14.1 or 14.2.

(2) Each appropriate authority or other body shall provide to the Minister at the end of each loan year, or on request of the Minister during a loan year, an accounting of all grants made to qualifying students by that appropriate authority or other body during that loan year or other period identified by the Minister.

(3) An appropriate authority or other body shall repay to the Minister any money provided for a loan year that is not given as grants in accordance with section 14.1 or 14.2. The overpayment becomes a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada on the day after the last day of that loan year.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-284 be amended by restoring clause 2 as follows:

“2. Sections 40.01 to 40.03 of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations are repealed.”

He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to debate the report stage of my Bill C-284. Let me recap for a moment for members the intent of Bill C-284.

The purpose of the bill is to extend to all four years of university the Canada access grants for students from low income families and students with disabilities. They now receive these grants in the first year of university. That is the intent of the bill: to make this program available for all four years of university to these students who are in need of assistance.

Many members of the House are aware of the demographic challenges the country faces, particularly in the coming decade or two. As the members of the House of Commons human resources committee have heard over the past year or so in their study on employability, and I was a member of that committee last year, many sectors in our country are facing shortages in the coming years in terms of skilled workers.

Some are already facing those shortages. Certainly members from Alberta are aware of challenges some employers there already have. I can tell the House that as well there are employers in Nova Scotia who are facing challenges in getting the people they need with the skills they need.

It is a problem all over the country. We heard from industries that are facing shortages over the next 10 to 15 years, shortages in the order of 100,000 or more people that they will need and do not believe they will have in terms of the numbers of people being trained now and what will be needed in the future.

That creates a real problem for our country in terms of productivity. If our businesses and organizations do not have the skilled people they need to perform the jobs that are now being performed, they are going to have a real problem being as effective and as efficient as they are today, let alone that they need to be in the future. That productivity challenge is one that is closely connected to the human resources challenge, the human capital challenge, we face in the country in terms of demographics.

One of the things we also heard in that committee was that many people in Canada are not able to take part in and benefit from the strength of our economy because of obstacles they face, whether it be because of low income and an inability to go to university or because of other kinds of problems. They may have disabilities and there may be obstacles to working. They may need assistance with a few little things that an employer might do in the workplace to make it possible for a person with a disability to work there and in fact make a great contribution. We have seen cases of employers who have made those changes, who have adapted their workplaces, and people have made tremendous contributions to their organizations or businesses.

That productivity issue is an important one. We need to make sure that no one in our country is left behind. That is why it is so important that we invest in our human capital and in education and make sure that no one in our country misses out on the chance to go to university or a community college. I hope that members in all parties agree.

I hope that all the members in this House will acknowledge that the government should make it a priority to ensure that there are no barriers to education and that people have the opportunity to take advantage of the inherent benefits of Canada's prosperity. This is very important.

In a country with great resources like Canada, it would be helpful for most Canadians to realize that if a person obtains the necessary grades to attend university, community college or CEGEP, it must be possible for them to do so.

In other words, I think Canadians would agree that in a country with our tremendous financial and human resources, if students have the marks to get into university, they get to go. That is the way it should be in this country. If students want to go to university and they have the marks, they should be able to get in.

Post-secondary education holds the key for us in developing the best trained, the most highly skilled and the most innovative Canadians. It is very important that we have these people. It is very important that we maximize the potential of Canadians. It is imperative that we nurture in this country a culture of education, whether it is by supporting the measures contemplated by the bill or whether it is in other ways, by encouraging people to recognize how important knowledge is and how important learning is.

We all remember what it was like when we were kids. Sometimes, unfortunately, among children, the kids who do the most to pursue knowledge, who are sometimes the best students, are treated negatively by other students. They are called “geeks”, for example, or other names of that sort, such as “professor”. When they are in grade four or five, it is a negative connotation, unfortunately, and we need to change that.

I do not know how we do it, but we need to change our society so we recognize that young people who are learning and gaining knowledge and others who have a lot of knowledge are critical for our economy. Those are the people who lead us to innovate. Those are the ones who do important research, who provide for our economy the innovations that make us competitive. These people have the knowledge and skills that can give us a better quality of life, so it is important to nurture that culture of education.

The timing for a bill like this and for the measures included in this bill could not be better. I know that many members sat down last week with representatives of student groups across the country to talk about facing educational challenges in our universities and community colleges. I had the pleasure of meeting with a bright young student from Nova Scotia, who kindly gave me a copy of a recent poll done in my province on post-secondary education. The poll addresses issues such as tuition fees, access to education, and debt.

Unfortunately, the average university tuition fees in Nova Scotia are currently $6,571. That is the average tuition for universities in the province and it is the highest average in Canada. It is actually a little bit less than it was last year, but unfortunately, other costs such as housing, room and board, books, et cetera, have gone up to compensate for that slight decrease we have seen.

Not surprisingly, 89% of those polled in my province supported a reduction of tuition fees for students in Nova Scotia. The fact is that the high cost of tuition is having a dramatic impact on enrolment. For example, the number of undergraduate students at Acadia plummeted by 10% this year.

By the way, that university is in the middle of a labour dispute, which I hope is quickly settled, not only because my daughter is a student there. While we like having her at home, it is important that she get the benefit of an education and maximize her time.

That drop in the number of undergraduate students at Acadia is the biggest drop in the Maritimes and that is a concern. We are seeing students go to Memorial University of Newfoundland because the cost of tuition there is much lower. It is obviously attractive to go there, but that means it is a challenge for the excellent universities we have in Nova Scotia.

On the question of access, an amazing 90% of Nova Scotians polled were concerned that young Nova Scotians will not get to go to a publicly funded university or community college even though they are qualified. In other words, although they get the grades, they do not get to go. People are worried about that. Obviously something needs to be done.

Bills like this, and the measures contemplated by the bill, are an excellent place to start. In committee, we tried to make some technical amendments and so forth. There were concerns brought forward by government members in relation to technical issues. At the committee stage, the various clauses in the bill did not pass, unfortunately, but we knew at the beginning, as you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that it required a royal recommendation, which means that when a bill contemplates spending efforts a minister has to rise and indicate support from the government for those efforts. Otherwise, the bill cannot go all the way to become law.

The important thing is that the bill has been before the House for a year and a half and the government has had all kinds of time to bring forward the kinds of measures suggested by the bill. There is no excuse for not doing it. There is no excuse for the government not doing it on its own. I think that is very disappointing.

I was pleased last year when a member from the NDP said that Bill C-284 “represents the most progressive and effective way of putting money directly into the hands of students who do not have the means to pay their tuition fees. I should add that the NDP also wanted to see some improvements to Bill C-284, and we did work together to try to make amendments and to make those improvements.

However, that is a far cry from the attitude of those across the way on the government side. Last year they pumped up their chests and trumpeted their meagre measures to address the current situation facing our students, and we will probably hear about that in a minute.

I hope that the discussion today reminds the government of the importance of bringing forward the kinds of measures that are considered in this bill to help those low income students, students with disabilities, students in need, to get the access to education that they need so much.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-284. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I wish to inform the House that the motions seek to restore the original title and provisions of the bill that had been removed in committee.

I draw members' attention to the fact that according to our practice Motion No. 2 would ordinarily be irreceivable if not accompanied by a royal recommendation. However, it was selected since it proposes to restore one of the bill's clauses which was deleted in committee.

That being said, members will recall my ruling of November 9, 2006, in the Debates at page 4979, if anyone wants to look for it, identifying Bill C-284 as requiring a royal recommendation. This ruling would remain in effect should Motion No. 2 be adopted to amend this bill.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-357--Employment Insurance Act and Bill C-362--Old Age Security Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to two private members' bills, Bill C-357 and Bill C-362. Without commenting on their merits, I submit that these two bills require royal recommendations.

First, I want to explain why Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting), requires a royal recommendation.

As the Chair ruled on May 9, 2005:

--bills which involve new or additional spending for a distinct purpose must be recommended by the Crown. The royal recommendation is also required where a bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill. What this means is that a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered.

I would note that Bill C-357 is nearly identical to Bill C-280 in the 38th Parliament which the Speaker ruled required a royal recommendation.

On June 13, 2005, the Speaker stated:

--Bill C-280 infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown for three reasons: first, clause 2 effects an appropriation of public funds by its transfer of these funds from the consolidated revenue fund to an independent employment insurance account established outside the consolidated revenue fund.

Second, clause 2 significantly alters the duties of the EI Commission to enable new or different spending of public funds by the commission for a new purpose namely, the investment of public funds.

Third, as indicated in my ruling of February 8, clause 5 increases the number of commissioners from four to seventeen.

All three of these conditions apply to Bill C-357.

Clause 2 would create an employment insurance account that is outside the consolidated revenue fund. The bill would transfer money out of the consolidated revenue fund to the employment insurance account and that money would no longer be available for any appropriations Parliament may make. This would be an appropriation of funds and, therefore, requires a royal recommendation.

However, worthy some aspects of the bill may be, and some aspects of it are, this does not alter the need for the royal recommendation.

Clause 2 would also change the duties of the Employment Insurance Commission, including new requirements for the commission to deposit assets with a financial institution and to invest assets to achieve a maximum rate of return.

These are new and distinct purposes which have not been authorized and are additional reasons why clause 2 requires a royal recommendation.

Clause 5 of Bill C-357 would increase the number of commissioners on the Employment Insurance Commission from its current four to seventeen.

On February 8, 2005, the Speaker ruled that the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Employment Insurance Commission in Bill C-280 required a royal recommendation. This is consistent with other rulings where the Speaker found that adding remunerated members to commissions requires a royal recommendation. Given these precedents, I submit that clause 5 requires a royal recommendation.

To sum up, Bill C-357 would require an appropriation, it would alter the purpose of funds covered by the act, and it would require new spending for an expanded commission; therefore, it must accompanied by a royal recommendation.

The second bill I want to draw to your attention is Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

This bill would increase old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits by lowering the threshold for eligibility from the current 10 years to 3. This change would result in significant new expenditures.

Under the Old Age Security Act, applicants must have at least 10 years of residence in Canada after age 18 in order to qualify for benefits.

I would further note that partial benefits are paid to applicants who have less than 10 years of residence if the applicant has credits from a country with which Canada has a pension agreement. Residence has been an eligibility criteria since this program's inception in 1952. Reducing the residence requirement from 10 years to 3 years would have significant costs.

Since eligibility for old age security pensions also qualifies for low income recipients to receive the guaranteed income supplement, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development estimates that the total cost of reducing the qualifying period would be over $700 million annually.

Precedents clearly establish that bills which create new expenditures for benefits by modifying eligibility criteria or changing the terms of a program require a royal recommendation.

On December 8, 2004, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-278, which extended employment insurance benefits, that:

Inasmuch as section 54 of the Constitution, 1867, and Standing Order 79 prohibit the adoption of any bill appropriating public revenues without a royal recommendation, the same must apply to bills authorizing increased spending of public revenues. Bills mandating new or additional public spending must be seen as the equivalent of bills effecting an appropriation.

On November 6, 2006, the Speaker ruled with regard to Bill C-269, which extended employment insurance benefits, that:

Funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes covered by a royal recommendation...New purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

On November 9, 2006, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-284, the bill that enlarged the scope of the student grants program beyond that originally authorized by Parliament, that:

Any extension of the terms of an existing program must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

On November 10, 2006, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-278, dealing with employment insurance benefits, that:

--by amending the Employment Insurance Act to extend sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, the bill would require the expenditure of additional funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

On March 23, 2007, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-265, dealing with employment insurance benefits, that it was abundantly clear:

--those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing employment insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.

I would also note that when Parliament adopted amendments to benefit criteria in the Old Age Security Act in Bill C-36 earlier this year, this legislation was accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In conclusion, Bill C-362 would increase expenditures for old age security and guaranteed income supplements in ways not already authorized and, therefore, should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Business of the House

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Before we begin private members' business today, I would like to remind the House that yesterday the Speaker made a statement in which he reminded the House that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the order paper during the previous session are reinstated to the order paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the first session. This also means that those items on the order of precedence remain on the order of precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to committee or sent to the Senate.

Just as individual items of private members' business continue their legislative progress from session to session, the Chair's rulings on these same items likewise survive prorogation. Specifically, there are six bills on which the Chair either ruled or commented with regard to the issue of the royal recommendation. The purpose of this statement is to remind the House of those rulings or statements.

Members will recall that on May 4 the Speaker made a statement expressing concern regarding the spending provisions contemplated by two bills, namely: Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, standing in the name of the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), standing in the name of the member for Brampton West.

Just as was done last May, the Chair invites members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for these two bills or any of the other bills on the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity.

Members will also recall that during the last session some private members' bills were found by the Speaker to require a royal recommendation. At the time of prorogation, there were four such bills on the order of precedence or in committee. Let us review briefly the situation in each of these four cases.

Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits),standing in the name of the member for Acadie—Bathurst, was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of persons with disabilities. The Chair ruled, on March 23, 2007, that the bill, in its present form, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants), standing in the name of the member for Halifax West, was awaiting debate at report stage. On November 9, 2006, the Chair had ruled that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. In committee all clauses of the bill were deleted. In its present eviscerated form, Bill C-284 need no longer be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Bill C-303, an act for early learning and child care, standing in the name of the member for Victoria, was awaiting debate at report stage in the House. The Chair ruled on November 6, 2006, that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The Chair finds that the amendments reported back from committee do not remove the requirement that the bill be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Finally, Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the member for Laurentides—Labelle, was at third reading in the House. The Chair ruled, also on November 6, 2006, that the bill, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation and reminded members, on April 18, 2007, that the amendments reported back from committee did not remove this requirement.

Consistent with past practice, although today's debate on Bill C-269 may proceed, the Chair wishes to remind members that the question on third reading of the bill in its present form will not be put unless a royal recommendation is received.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Luc Leduc]

It's much more than interpretive, in my view. It is a direction to read into section 14 those words that the amendment does not purport to say, but which it does in fact say.

Where it says, “Every reference in this Act”, that is a command by Parliament. It says:

Every reference in this Act to “to persons pursuant to regulations made under paragraph 15(p)” shall be read as a reference to “to persons pursuant to sections 14.1 to 14.3 and regulations made under paragraph 15(p)”.

That is an indirect amendment. That is opening up section 14 of the act indirectly to say that you are obliged to read in those words when you read section 14. Section 14 is not a section that is currently part of Bill C-284.

I'm just answering the member's question on that first part.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that Bill C-284 in clause 1 be amended by adding after line 24 on page 3 the following:

14.4 Every reference in this Act to “to persons pursuant to regulations made under paragraph 15(p)” shall be read as a reference to “to persons pursuant to sections 14.1 to 14.3 and regulations made under paragraph 15(p)”.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Chair, it is of course with deep regret that I challenge your ruling. This is why: our amendment deals only with the clauses of Bill C-284. That is to say that the opting-out provision applies only to the clauses of Bill C-284. This is why we believe that it is admissible, and why I challenge your ruling, Madam Chair.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

With all respect, Madam Chair, please understand that we believe it is admissible because it deals with the amendments to Bill C-284.

If by chance we had affected section 14.7, I would have understood your refusal. But the provisions of Bill C-284 already give us room to submit the amendment. This is why we sincerely believe that this amendment must be considered admissible, Madam Chair.

I would like the amendment to be looked at in the light of the arguments that I have put forward. I say again that we have not affected section 14.7.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Chair, let us remember that, if I am not mistaken, Bill C-284 does not deal with section 14.7 where the regulations are referred to. These are the regulations that give the provinces, and therefore Quebec, the right to opt out of this program with compensation.

In effect, when this provision about the regulations is included in Bill C-284, the provision allowing opting-out with compensation can no longer be found.

From the discussion we had at our meeting, I did not get the impression that the members of this committee intended to remove the provision; they wanted to keep it. We therefore had a procedural problem that prevented us from looking at section 14.7 as such, because the bill did not deal with it.

In order to correct this, we therefore began with the clauses already in Bill C-284. This is why our amendment proposes that Bill C-284, in clause 1, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 3 the following:

14.4 Where a government of a province has, at least 12 months before the beginning of a loan year, notified the Minister in writing that it does not wish, or no longer wishes, to participate in the plan established by sections 14.1 to 14.3, the Minister shall pay to the province, not later than six months after the end of the loan year, and each following loan year in which it does not participate in the plan, the amount that the Minister would have paid to students in the province for the loan year if the province had participated in the plan.

In that way, Madam Chair, we correct the omission that we noticed the last time.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Chair, I remind the committee that Bill C-284 does not deal with section 14.7 which grants provinces and Quebec, of course, the right to opt out and receive compensation. Given that Bill C-284 deals with the regulations that allow...

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

With your permission, Madam Chair, I humbly suggest that we would like first to deal with our amendment that allows provinces that so desire to opt out, but with the right to compensation. I have two amendments in this regard.

This is the reason for my request: last time, we made it clear that we could not support Bill C-284 as drafted unless we introduced an amendment that would allow us to amend sections 14.1 and 14.3 in order to overcome the obstacle in section 14.7.

With your permission, Madam Chair, we could begin with my amendments. That would allow us to vote for the amendments that follow.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Ruby Dhalla]

Good afternoon to everyone.

My apologies for the delay in starting. We needed to have a quorum and get all of the paperwork in order, which is now done.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, the committee will now be resuming its study on Bill C-284. We have to go through a number of amendments clause by clause. Hopefully we can get through them expeditiously. If anyone has any questions, please let me know.

We will be starting with clause 1.

Mr. Lessard.

(On clause 1)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So that is done.

I am going to suggest, in the interests of time--we have been here two and a half hours--that we adjourn the meeting for today and we look at Bill C-284 on Tuesday. Employability will always be there as a backup, so if it takes us an hour to move through Bill C-284, great. If it takes us two hours, that won't jeopardize individuals who are coming as a result.

Is that okay with the committee?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm not sure exactly what Ms. Savoie was asking. Was it whether we would just adjourn the meeting and come back some other time? What was the request? We're sitting here; we're supposed to be doing clause-by-clause consideration on this, and it seems that there is a pretty major issue.

I would note that we have many very important things we should be doing as a committee, and this is the third time we have been dealing with a bill that has some serious issues associated with it. We had the Bloc's Bill C-257. We had the NDP's Bill C-304. Now we have the Liberals' Bill C-284. All of them had things in them that were clearly not completely thought out before they came here. In every case there is an urgency for discussing these bills.

Of course, I understand that a private member's bill is never going to be perfect and there are always going to be things that you have to deal with in committee, but in each of these cases they had major flaws that probably should have been discovered by the parties sponsoring the bills.

It comes down to the fact that we have this employability thing that we're supposed to be doing. We have a poverty study that we're all on side with and want to get into. If we adjourn this meeting and then come back and have to have another meeting on this, it just seems like a crazy way to go about it.

I'm not sure what Ms. Savoie is talking about. Is that what your suggestion was, that we put this on the side and come back? If we do that, does it end the meeting and we waste another two hours?