That may be the way to do this. I'm not suggesting it. I might support it; I haven't decided. All I was saying is that because this is the transport committee, and the corporate memory is transport-related and there is lots of business to do, I would be fearful that something critically important to the country might not get this.... I mean, just the fact that this is the transport, infrastructure, and communities committee and that we might consider a subcommittee for infrastructure and communities suggests in and of itself something—that somehow that's a secondary piece of this. I'm not suggesting it's more important, but it's equally important.
I would agree with Mr. Jean that perhaps it hasn't been given the kind of attention, even in the past, that it should have been given, but that's behind us now. I just wanted to make sure that the importance of this to communities, for instance, is critical.
There are debates on the question as to what is transport and what is infrastructure, and what is the difference. Those debates need to be discussed here too. I think it's important to the country.
I'm not saying it should be a subcommittee, as long as it gets appropriate attention in the main committee. Either way is fine by me. If it isn't getting appropriate attention in the main committee, perhaps we have to do something else. But I think the fact that we would consider infrastructure and communities as the thing that would automatically go to the subcommittee alerts me a little bit to the fact that people still think this is a transport committee, and that's the other thing.