I understand, Richard.
We get these pressures, I know. But overall, in the whole thing, you have 308 parliamentarians who are making decisions on over $200 billion of expenditures a year, and a lot of those things are very important for the long run. If we're flying a cabinet minister to Toronto today, it's going to cost $40,000 to send them there and back.
I won't be there either, so I don't have the conflict, but you're looking at a dozen members of Parliament who will I think have their understanding of those vicinities, and the scope of it, and the size of it.... If you're interested in the environmental issues, both positively and negatively, I think it's important that you go up. If you look at the cost on the whole scheme of the thing, the cost to bring you up there plus for these highly paid administration people who are here, that's the big cost. On top of that, the additional money I think is probably value for money.
I was amazed when I saw it by helicopter. They chose where they brought me; I was Minister of Fisheries at the time and it was on environmental things. But to fly over what looks like an environmental wasteland, a disaster, where everything is black, and the Athabasca River is running through that and you can see absolutely right through it to see what.... They've done a really fantastic job environmentally on those things. I wouldn't have imagined without seeing it from a helicopter that was possible, that it was humanly possible.
So I would encourage you to let the chairman take the hit on the financing part of it.