Thank you.
I share the concern about being able to compare apples with apples that Mr. Lake is raising, but I think there are two concerns, one of which they have expressed themselves: they don't want to bog down the department. Why not accept this motion as it is and make an additional motion to get these facts down the road, because we're not asking for anything different from what was obtained.
There's no rush on that information. It is going to be good to have, and I would support it if it came in a separate motion with a different timeline. There isn't the same rush for 2003 as there is to respond to the groups that have been calling our offices.
It would be useful to have, and I would support getting it with a longer timeline, if they're willing to make that kind of amendment and change the timeline. This is the urgent part of it. Let's not bog down the department, as you suggested on your side, and get at this information. Then we can come back and get at the other information for previous years, if you feel the need to respect a principle of comparing apples with apples.
It's not a question of not accepting the principle Mr. Lake raises. It's just a question of different levels of urgency that we want to get at to respond to our constituents in our ridings, to the groups that have approached us, to the students who have talked to us.