Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm looking for some advice, because of your expertise.
By the way, I'm reluctant to speak for any committee members, but I did find this response to the work we did insulting. I don't really want to disagree with Mr. Martin on this point, but it is an “apathy”.
I am actually quite frustrated and very angry at the response we got. He goes into the history of looking at this and studying that. Then it comes to last spring when the committee started examining your 12 proposals—these were 12 quick fixes that essentially we all agreed upon—and later in the letter he says that more extensive study is required.
I'm putting you on the spot, but what did we miss? What more could we have done to get the government's attention to have these revisions done? We had umpteen witnesses. We spent a lot of time on this. It wasn't that we just glossed over it. Can you offer any direction, perhaps even just to me, as a committee member?