Just to make a point in reference to what Mr. Bill Siksay has said, it would not be my view, given everything I've seen and how the committee has worked, that it would be reasonable to hear witnesses and shorten the time to hear them on relevant legislation and what the amendments might be and then go to a clause-by-clause, without having any time to reflect as to any amendments. I wouldn't agree with him there. It's certainly not something I would consider appropriate.
Having said that, there are some legitimate concerns that you and others have raised about transitional provisions and implementation. The bill, as it now stands, doesn't deal with the transitional provision as to when it'll become effective--whether back to 2002 or otherwise--which might inadvertently create an immediate backlog.
Is that what you were referring to as a significant issue?