For consideration, I don't really understand the reason for recommendation 5. If Shaw and Vidéotron have decided to recommence their monthly payments and get caught back up to date, I'm at a complete loss to understand why we would need this motion in any event.
The second part is that this interest-free bridge financing is a cost to the government that is under the purview of, obviously, the Treasury Board and the finance minister. Furthermore, any loans that are either made or guaranteed by the government are the same as having been made. As Mr. Scott will know—say, on $100 million, to pick a number—if there was a guarantee or a loan put forward, that would go against the current spending of the government. So it's not just an incidental thing to say, gee, we need some kind of bridge here. It's not an incidental thing at all.
Secondly, I don't understand why we need it when Shaw and Vidéotron have already said they're going to recommence their payments.