I think our primary responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure we have a process, since we are masters of our own fate in terms of committee, that we establish regardless of what anybody else does, that empowers the members, that holds government accountable, that does have a mechanism in place for follow-up, and also provides rationale as to what we are doing. If stakeholders come back and ask what happened, why the recommendation was....
I've been on the other side. I agree with Laurie that, yes, governments do have to make decisions. But at some point we also, as the opposition, may say, “Here is the recommendation we think is really important, it came across unclear, and we want to highlight it”. As to how you highlight it, I guess you can do it any way you like. But I think we need to particularly look, as we go forward, to deal with the kinds of discussions in which we frame it so that we ourselves get better value out of this in the end.
If some of us got together and said “Here's a recommendation that we think....” You can't say everything is bad. We'd say, “This is really critical, and we think we may want to highlight it in a different way”. And that's fine; you may even agree with us, presumably, because you're all part of this study. At the end of the day, I don't drive my car looking in the rear-view mirror all the time either, but I do like to think that we can maybe get some suggestions written out; maybe if Wolf could come back and say, well, here, this would be helpful...and also helpful to you in terms of how we frame it in the future, because we're going to do more of these, presumably.