I think the comments by both Ms. Bonsant and Ms. Savoie speak to the problem with the communication here. Both of them refer to the fact that they already have this information for their own riding.
The trouble is, no one else has the information for your own riding. What we're releasing here is everybody's information across the country. So you may have the information for your own riding—we all do, for the years we've been MPs—but what we're releasing here is information across the country, for everybody's riding.
I want to see the information for your riding. If I'm going to see the information from 2006 and 2007, I want to see the information from 2004 and 2005 as well. That's what I'm asking about.
You weren't maybe listening to what they said, Mr. Savage, because both of them were concerned about the fact that they already have the information for their own riding.
If we're going to release all of this information, clearly I want to see it for 2004 and 2005. I'm not going to hide the fact that we had a change in government—actually, I'm rather proud of the fact that we had a change in government—in January 2006. I think it would be fair to take a reasonable snapshot here, to have a picture of the two years previous to the change in government, if we're going to have the information anyway, and the two years after. It's just a logical, commonsense way to approach this information, if we're going to do this.
I can't see anybody actually opposing that amendment, to be honest. If you're going to ask for the information, you have to ask for all of the information, at least the amount of information that gives a clean snapshot of the history here, and I think four years is a reasonable snapshot, if we're going to go down this road anyway.