Except that the infrastructure bank is a completely new institution that is being created. When you're looking at how fundamental that is, at the need for further study, and at this notion of respecting Parliament and making sure that you have the opportunity for parliamentarians to look at this and to study it in committees—for which there was not, unfortunately, an opportunity—and where someone can get up on a 10-minute or 20-minute speech, that piece of legislation alone warrants a speech of that length, if not more.
When it's such a fundamental change, is there not an argument to be made that if we really want to respect that process.... Because there's a spirit of things too, right? I understand this notion of trying to prescribe an appropriate way for use, but even then there would be exceptions. Is this not something that would be an exception in that case?