Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Things change quickly, but inasmuch as it is new, what will happen is that as time goes by you will develop all kinds of people who will have opinions and probably witnesses who will want to come and express an opinion on how the law has been applied or if it's been applied and so on. I suspect we'll end up, if we do a review--or the committee in the future, whoever is on that committee, would probably end up hearing witnesses on it, and I imagine it would take a little more time than we have spent on it at the juncture, which is why I think it's appropriate to leave it at a five-year interval. You've got to give some time for these things to play out.
Second, I think Mr. Dorion does make a valid remark, though, when he makes a point about a one-year period of review. Maybe that's a little bit long. Why wouldn't we say six months, as opposed to a year, for a committee to review that, so we can shorten it up on that end?
And the way it's worded in this, “such committee of the Senate and of the House”--are we talking about a combined committee here? We had some discussion about this, it seems to me, recently. Is it a combined committee of the Senate and the House or both committees? Which committees in fact? The way this clause is worded, “such committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the Senate and the House”, are we talking about a House of Commons committee, a Senate committee, both committees, a joint committee?