I understand what Madam Davidson is saying, because of course I've sat on the committee for a number of years and I know that's not in our mandate and all of that. But sometimes it's a matter of a penny of prevention, if you like, or forethought—and foresight goes a long way, rather than having to react to something that could have been or might have been.
So I don't think it hurts to send a message. At minimum, this motion would send a message to the Standing Committee on Finance that they ought to be aggressively looking at this issue, which they have not been doing to date. At best, they would welcome and agree to cooperate and work with us on a number of meetings, and it wouldn't have to be the whole of their hearings, but some of them.
I don't think this is a negative thing, but it is actually a helpful and supportive thing. Of course, they also know that we will be doing the post-budget review, so I think all of it helps. I don't have a problem with it. I don't think it steps on anybody's toes. It's simply saying that we would like to have some work done pre-budget, because otherwise, after the fact, it is a little too late. You can complain, but, you know....