Mr. Chair, I have a point of clarification.
We obviously vote. You have a very valid recommendation, and we'll probably have to support that; that's the process. But witnesses illustrated that there was a backstop on the government's part, that they were going out to private insurance--they had 21 insurers--and that whatever the liability was, the established $650 million or whatever, they would take that to the private market. That's the assumption we're going on.
That recommendation implies to me, and I think to the committee, that the government is responsible for whatever the amount is. We were never able to establish that—at least not in my mind—because they kept saying they were going out to the private insurance companies, that there's a pool of insurers.
So I'm not sure. I'm going to support your position. I don't think you have any choice. But I think there's a misunderstanding, or whoever assembled that opinion is doing it on the basis of different premises. The premise here is that the government is liable for $650 million, and therefore the royal recommendation stands. My understanding was that this is a little bit of a hybrid in that they are actually going out to the private insurance market. I think that is...not erroneous, but inconclusive in terms of what actually exists.
Thank you for the opportunity just to say that, because that's the confusion I've had all along.