Yes, I actually do. Is that okay?
My question is for Mr. Shillington, because we've had a lot of talk today about there being no need for measures and of the need for measures maybe being overstated. Mr. Shillington, in your initial opening statement you referred to an example of a woman from Quebec who, by different measures of poverty, would be defined very differently in terms of percentage. I think it was 65%, and you went down to 5% based on a whole bunch of different examples.
Now, as I explained before, as MPs we're asked to be stewards of Canadian taxpayers' dollars, and of course there are no real federal dollars. The federal government doesn't have a pot of money that is just the federal government's to spend. It's all Canadian individuals' money. As stewards of those dollars, when we're talking to our constituents and we're justifying the decisions we make, we have to be able to explain why we would take money away from one person--a taxpayer, one of our constituents--and give it to maybe not a taxpayer but to another Canadian citizen. There has to be a reasonable justification. That's why it's important that we have measures. If you don't have measures, or if measures aren't important, how do you make these political decisions?
I would actually ask this question of everybody, because I think all of you have touched on the fact that the need for measurement is somewhat overstated. I'd like to hear how you would make those decisions if you were in our position.