Okay. You had your 10 minutes. I really want to ask some questions.
I understand what you're saying. You think it should have been done before you had the benefit of the recommendations of the committee, which I don't agree with. The reason I don't agree with it is because there are glaring errors in the bill, which would have been addressed in advance if you had waited for the report of the committee.
So that's what I want to go through now, the errors that this committee...and when you eventually read the report, you'll understand.
An example is licence plates. You say you had the benefit of all the evidence of these various groups. But all the evidence indicated that licence plates and the description of the vehicles that these offenders have should be included in the registry. It's not in your bill. You indicated that you had the benefit of all of this evidence. Why, even though this was one of the strongest points that was made by these various groups, did you omit that clear improvement that should have been made?