It probably is, so I'm not going to ask it. The fact that I've left it hanging there is enough.
Whoever gets it, and I hope we will be involved somehow, I think it behooves us to be prepared. Throughout the spring and the summer and this fall, I have received, and I'm sure my colleagues around the table have as well, numerous requests for meetings. I want to accommodate as many of those as I can and I want to prepare as well as I can for whenever the legislation comes, so it would be useful to know which groups have been consulted by either department. That's a factual information requirement. There's no speculation needed there. I'm just asking for this year, and also if it's possible to obtain that information--and I don't know that it is not--which groups either minister has met. I know they've met some because I've met some of the same people, but if there are others I have not had a chance to meet, it would be useful to know that so that we too can get to know. We wish to have, inasmuch as is possible, a level playing field as we embark on this.
I remember Bill C-32, back in 1997. I was involved there. It was very complex legislation. We met at least 50 witnesses--groups and so forth--and I expect we'll be facing the same thing. So any preliminary work that can be done to help us individually and collectively, as we're doing here, understand what's coming would be useful. It's in that sense that the question was asked. It was nothing nefarious.
I'll repeat the question. If it's possible to get that information, I think it would be quite useful, because I don't know all the groups and I'm sure I don't know all of
the issues. There is a whole series of them, and I imagine that some will not be included in the bill, whereas others, which have not yet come to mind, will. It is better to be safe than sorry.