My last question will just pick up on that point of a dialogue. This committee is going to be engaged in a few meetings of study and legislative review of a bill that is effectively one page and that addresses two very narrow issues in the Criminal Code. It's an important bill in the sense that it addresses a Supreme Court ruling of some note, as my colleague from the Conservative Party addressed, but it doesn't allow for a broad conversation at a committee like this. It doesn't allow for a multitude of stakeholders to come in and not just talk about these provisions in the Criminal Code, but ask, “How do we, as a society, better protect animals across this country?”
Do you think it would be more productive, in terms of dialogue, to have a committee like this, whether the justice committee or a special all-party parliamentary committee devoted to animal protection, to say, “Let's bring in witnesses across the country, because we, as parliamentarians—it doesn't matter what party what party we're from—care about animal cruelty”, to see what consensus we can forge to then introduce a new bill that would potentially do more for animals based upon significant consensus and a larger dialogue that could take place at a parliamentary committee? Do you think that would be a productive way forward?