First, I'll say that there were improvements made from the prior bill to this bill, so the government did listen, and some of the things that are in this bill are better than the one that was introduced in the first instance and really didn't go anywhere.
I will also say candidly that I must admit that this is one of the hardest committee appearances that I've had in a very long time, in part because typically, when you're invited—and I have appeared on omnibus legislation before like the one we get with, let's say, the budget implementation act—you're invited for a specific kind of provision, and we recognize how that works.
In this instance, we really have two distinct bills, perhaps more than two, but two fundamentally on those two issues, plus, of course, the tribunal. You get five minutes. I recognize that you don't get multiple appearances, and you don't get multiple amounts of time to deal with it. I do think, as I look around, that the witnesses—people like Brenda McPhail, Professor Krishnamurthy, my colleague Teresa Scassa and Professor Bennett—have enormous expertise across the board. There is some correlation here.
This strikes me as not just an inefficient way of dealing with this, but I think, if I'm honest about it, that it's an ineffective way of trying to be effective with the responses that I'm giving. There is obviously a limit from a time perspective, a limit in terms of what I could prioritize and the kinds of issues that I try to highlight. Something's got to give, so to speak. At the end of the day, you can't talk about everything, and this would have been far better, I think, had we divided the two.