I think there is a larger issue, and I think there's an innocent difference of opinion.
The users who use the data are doing this all the time. They do it full-time; they're looking at this data. They probably contribute to the provision of the data they're organizing. This is a document that is tabled in Parliament to members of Parliament. It's important that it's signed by the minister because that's where the accountability piece comes from. What distinguishes the production of a report from all the broad data that would be on the website is the exercise of presenting that information to us in a way that we might ask for it, the way that we would receive it, and the way it would be debated.
The idea that somehow there's less value in that, in what I think I'm hearing, than I believe there should be—and I'm sure that's not what you meant....
All we're suggesting is that maybe having a less comprehensive report annually and a broader and more expansive report every five years might even save Mr. Jean's trees; I don't know. The bottom line here is that this is an honest effort to get two things done: to have an annual accountability by the minister to the committee, to Parliament—to do that every year—and then to have something much more comprehensive every five years.
You would have the best of both worlds. You have the immediacy that has been spoken about in terms of the importance of safety and you have the comprehensiveness of a much richer document. That's what we're attempting to do, and I think it's been expressed here quite well that it is something that has some value.