Yes, but that's why we're here. This is the point of the testimony.
If we get recommendations then we can put them forward. You also said that you didn't appreciate ramming it through. But there isn't legislation, it's a consultation. Where you're sitting here today, instead of your testimony being on growth, which was the request of the committee—and I get it, that the concern would be that growth could be impeded if your members feel that these are unfair—but the process we're doing here today is recommendations. Nothing is being rammed through. You have the opportunity to put testimony on the table.
In income sprinkling, you used the example of a son working in the business, legitimately so, and how could anyone possibly deal with CRA and legitimize that work? But how can people who aren't incorporated, whether they hire their son or a kid they've known forever, justify the expense of the employee through paying them an income? The Minister of Finance has said that a family member legitimately working in the business can continue to do so. Couldn't they simply justify that as a legitimate employee by paying them just like any other business owner would?