I understand that. My sports betting bill has taken over a decade. It is for one line in the Criminal Code and stalled for two years in the Senate after it passed the House of Commons, so I get it. Is that the same philosophy?
One of the other things we looked at was the Pension Benefits Standards Act and allowing the superintendent of financial institutions to flag deficiencies of pensions. Is that the same thing? Are you trying to keep the bill clear, neat and simple so it can get broad political support from other parties versus adding a couple of other points that might be more complicated or that may need more political support from other political parties to come to fruition, like those that other countries have? The United States actually has this kind of provision.
I'll leave it to you to answer that part.