Further to Yasmin's question and the whole thing about disincentives, I think Scott and Harold were right; most of the disincentives that were discussed were really sort of just blue-skied, right? But if there are to be disincentives, obviously we would have to look at them very carefully.
As an example, every time that Parliament is reconvened, or a new session of Parliament begins, there's a pro forma bill that comes in. It's usually called Bill C-1. That gives the government the authority to introduce legislation. That could--I don't know the answer to this--if that were delayed 60 days, or 90 days, or whatever, also inhibit the introduction of private members' bills.
So if you are looking at disincentives, as I think the point was made by a number of our witnesses, you have to look very carefully at the consequences of each of the disincentives to make sure that what you're hoping for is actually what you get, as opposed to unintended consequences, and that may be one of the unintended consequences.
I think the whole issue of disincentives would almost be a separate study, because it really is very tricky at times to come up with something that doesn't impact negatively on other parts of the legislative proceedings.