Mr. Chairman, with regard to the motion on the floor, and pertaining specifically to the short-term priorities of our government, I don't think our committee intended to state that they are in disagreement with the government's short-term priorities. What they are suggesting, as I understood it, is that besides what they have within their short term priorities for the department, they were asking the department to also consider highways 5, 8, 6 and 1 based on the rationale that was given to them by the committee. I'm sure the Minister understood the concerns that were raised. I think the way I read this particular motion is that they are not asking the government to do away with what's already in existence, but maybe to incorporate the concerns of the Members that have been raised in the committee. I don't know if that was the intent, but that's the way I understood it, Mr. Chairman. They're not asking the government to change their short-term priorities, they're saying, why don't you take another look at these other four highways to see if you can incorporate them also, into your short-term plans. Some of the arguments that were brought forward, I think, are valid and I'm sure the government can somehow accommodate the concerns of the committee. So, I'm generally in agreement with this particular recommendation. It's not to take away from what the government already set for themselves. I think it just adds to the short term priorities for the government, to take a look at these four particular highways, based on the arguments that were provided through our Standing Committee on Finance.