We're talking about the quality of the report and not just the philosophy of it, not just the political partisanship of it. We may have got there anyway, by a straight vote of democracy, but the fact that the non-representation was there is the point I was trying to make. We may have got to the subcommittee dealing with only this topic, or dealing with this topic first. It might still have happened. But I can tell you, I feel very comfortable that should another member of the government be on that committee, we would have at least talked about, we would have at least brought forward, some talk that legislation needed to be dealt with.
But this committee in its past has always dealt that way, that legislation came first. That's not what's happened here. It clearly says that they met and they considered the business of the committee, which means they should have considered legislation. But they agreed to only deal with a very partisan motion. So there we are, that's where we're at now.