I think we are getting into political manoeuvring here, that much is quite clear, because discussions of this type will not be helpful at all. I am not saying that this is not important, but in the context of making a decision—one with which we agree—in order to minimize the impact on small savers, I do not think that studying what the Liberal government did will be helpful to us. If we wanted to do that, I would amend the motion further to find out why the Prime Minister changed his mind, because he had said during the election campaign that he would not change the tax rules. Then, all of a sudden, with no warning whatsoever, it became extremely important to do just that. That issue would interest me more, because the Conservatives are in power at the moment.
So I think that proceeding in this way would simply confuse the issue. I prefer to reject this amendment, and if the committee wishes, we could perhaps look at both the Liberal and Conservative management of the income trust issue. I will have no problem with that. However, in the context of Mr. McCallum's motion, I think this is political manoeuvring designed to muddy the waters.