That's not even economics 101. That's not even basic economics.
You tell that to a low-income person who might get a $40 benefit or a $99 benefit from this reduction, versus a wealthy family getting a $900 benefit.
Let me go on to the other issue. I think we'll get nowhere on this. I think it's a very simplistic analysis and does not reflect the reality of people's lives.
I would like to talk about mortgage insurance, because it would seem, based on all of our discussions, that this is something the department has wanted for a long time. I thought before maybe it was a Liberal agenda and then a Conservative agenda. My sense is that it's been a department agenda and it has been advanced regardless of the political situation. Now you have your day. Now you've won the way, and there does not seem to be a single piece of evidence or a study you've done--unless you can table that today or soon--that demonstrates how in fact this new approach of opening up wide the system for a number of competitors will actually help people who are looking for mortgage insurance.
I'd like to know if there's a study that shows there's a problem now. I'd like to know if there's a study that's been done on the possible impact. We received some very good presentations, and all suggested safeguards be put in place. Where's the information to show that you've taken into account those concerns and that this isn't just a simple case of advancing an agenda regardless of consequence?