I wanted to ensure that my answer would be concise, so that I wasn't wasting your time.
I think when you look at C-2 generally, the government has put into legislation much of what it had in fact promised.
With respect to this particular situation, we felt it was very different because we hadn't made particular comments, and there were big issues that affect the operation of cabinet and government. Indeed, this affects how your office may do business as a non-government or an opposition member.
We felt it would be appropriate to give that discussion paper to this committee. Obviously we'd like to see it move as quickly as possible, but I realize there is a lot of work.
I think there would have been a lot more work had we come to certain conclusions that were diametrically opposed to what the Information Commissioner had said, for example. Had I come here and said, look, we disagree with what the Information Commissioner said about cabinet confidences or solicitor-client privilege and we had simply put it in the legislation, you might have been tempted to say, you're ignoring the Information Commissioner.
In fact, what we're doing is simply recognizing that these are huge steps in terms of how government operates and how it would impact on it. We didn't feel that it would be appropriate. It's not a partisan issue because we know this will affect all future governments, and we want to be on the right side of this issue.