Thank you. I do appreciate that.
I think this is a really good discussion. We started with the minister and the officials. I reread Hansard last night, and we had really good testimony from all over on this.
My point from the beginning was just to get a background. I think a lot of the committee members had the same concerns, and a lot of witnesses said the same. This does one thing, but we need bills that supplement this; we need strategies to supplement this. We could pass this bill as parliamentarians, and a year from now we would still have all these things happening and we're going to ask why. I think the public and anyone watching, and all of us here, need to understand that this is one aspect, and now we need to move from this to other aspects of what this does and what this does not do. I think that's been really important.
Because this came afterwards, I just wanted to get your opinion. The C.D. Howe Institute proposed a national security amicus or intermediary, which was a review. It's more on the transparency aspect of this bill, but it allowed a review that.... It was almost like CFIUS, where they have different public members and a few judges who would review certain forms of direct investment.
Was that something your department looked at? Did you look at that briefing and see anything around that?