That's fine. He did suggest and have some discussions re other times that we could meet, and particularly Wednesday of this week. As I look at it, there weren't the witnesses to bring forward anyway.
Having said that, I at no time suggested, certainly, that we would simply rush this thing through, after hearing from witnesses, without bringing forward amendments that would improve this bill, make it better, and respond to some of the difficulties with the bill brought forward by the witnesses. I mean, that's the work of committee. That's how committee works. That's the dynamic of committee. To suggest for a second that we might not, given the opportunity, as we have this afternoon, bring forward amendments and have them discussed and voted on or not, is not, I think, understanding the process.
For example, one of the big concerns of the bill is that it's not actuarially sound, that there isn't the money coming in from the people who are going to be covered that would be available to cover the cost of the benefits to them. What the Bloc has moved here is an amendment that will move us in that direction, particularly where Quebec is concerned. There already is special consideration for Quebec in the bill. This just moves us to a place where the bill may in fact be more actuarially sound. Because of that, we're going to support it.
I'm going to suggest to you that there are other difficulties with this bill. Given that we don't have unlimited time--we never do with bills--and that the government has brought forward a piece of work that we think is necessary for a significant number of self-employed workers out there, we're bringing forward an amendment to make sure the government actually lives up to a commitment they made in the budget, which is to set up a panel of experts to look at this and come back and make recommendations to change it so that it in fact does work better for everybody concerned. But we'll have that discussion when that time comes.
Those are my comments at this time.