The other item that I was going to ask a question about was with respect to some of the considerations within the act that you say are similar to what exists under IRPA and some that are not. The ones that exist in the act are obvious ones. Regardless of where you're taking them from, they are the kinds of things that you would expect. But the rest is left up to regulations, and of course that builds in a certain element of flexibility. You see a need for some flexibility if you're dealing especially with adoptions in foreign jurisdictions, and you may want to react to that. Going through regulations is a lot simpler than actually passing an act, as we know. What's involved in getting a piece of legislation through the House is quite different from regulation. So comment on that.
Secondly, when the regulations are going through, there is of course a process through which they're gazetted, and there is input that can be made with respect to those regulations and input by various parties, which is not necessarily brought back before a committee.
Now, it seems to me that bringing it back before the committee for some input is maybe an extension of what already exists. Why would that be necessary? Do you not think that a certain measure of flexibility is okay? Rather than having some of these items enshrined in the act, isn't it wiser to leave it up to regulation and, I suppose, department officials and those who deal day-to-day with these issues to implement them in the normal fashion? I mean, it's not just peculiar to this bill. Regulations do get passed in the fashion that's suggested.