I'm going to turn to the other witnesses now.
Did any of you participate in the consultations on Bill C-11 or the bill the committee is currently studying, Bill C-27? Please nod your head if you did.
I see that no one was consulted. All right.
In light of what we've seen since we began our study a few weeks ago, no one seems to have been consulted, but the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry says that 300 individuals and organizations were consulted after the bill was introduced. I'd like to find those individuals and organizations. I don't know where they are.
In a moment, I'll be giving notice of a motion, but I'd like to ask you a question, first, Ms. Piovesan.
Mr. Balsillie appeared before the committee, and I'm sure you read his remarks. He likened the bill to a bucket that has holes. What witnesses have told us so far seems to suggest that the bucket basically has no bottom. That's what it seems like.
You talked about the fact that the committee has heard opposing views from witnesses. Take the tribunal, for instance. Some suggested getting rid of it because we didn't need it, while others argued the opposite, that having a tribunal in the sector was important.
Given how far apart on the spectrum people's views are, do you think the bill should have been split from the beginning? We've heard from the start that the bill is almost monstrous, that it's too big, that the privacy piece and the AI piece should have been dealt with separately.
What do you think?