I would like to clarify one thing: we have listened and considered what they have said, and have been doing so for a number of years.
In some cases, we must try to balance things, particularly the different interests, in order to have a good bill and good public policy. That is what we did. We considered a number of the recommendations, including those made by the Canadian Bar Association.
I stated that it was too early to say whether or not we were in favour of changes to the bill. We believe that it is balanced and that its architecture is good. Some proposals were made about the wording. Is it possible to improve the wording? That is what I was referring to. Otherwise we monitor the discussions and consider the comments.