It sounds to me as if we're having a bit of a debate outside the scope of the bill, Mr. Chair. If we want to study the housing market, we certainly can do that following the next four years that we have to study different things in committee. CMHC versus private insurers, and what the caps are, etc.--that isn't addressed in the bill specifically. I'd like to stick to what's in the bill.
When we talk about urgency, and I would ask the officials to confirm this, the reason I see it as being urgent is that when we look at other countries, like Greece and Italy—this morning I was listening to the news—we see there is risk worldwide economically. This just ensures that there actually is oversight. Without this bill, if unfortunately there were a downturn we wouldn't have legislated oversight, which is why this is an urgent bill.
Is that correct? Do you want to add anything or expand upon that?