We had heard that it might happen but, since there was no confirmation, we were not sure. By the way, a representative of the department is always present to take note of what is discussed. Therefore, we knew that it was a possibility but it was not confirmed on the web site.
As I already indicated, we have listened to comments about the bill overall. Some of the comments were not necessarily new in that they had been mentioned at consultations. In our opinion, the bill in its current form is good.
I mentioned 50 specific provisions for which the Canadian Bar Association proposed very clear changes. In some cases, it was a matter of wording. Therefore, we need to know whether or not the wording improves things. That becomes an exercise that we had not—
With respect to the questions and issues discussed today, we continue to believe that parts 6 and 7 have a role to play and would clarify the position of a non-profit organization when it finds itself in that situation. That is also the case for the distinction between the definition of “soliciting” and non-soliciting”. We continue to believe that the distinction is a valid and useful one, given the nature of public information in certain cases and not in others.
In general, we are satisfied with the bill in its present form. I was really referring to specific proposals about wording that would clarify the text rather than change the bill.