Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I'll take all of my seven minutes, so if one of my colleagues cares to follow up, they can do that.
First of all, Madam O'Brien, thank you for your acknowledgement that this is not well understood. I can certainly say that if it's not well understood by you, it certainly isn't that well understood by me. And it's been very confusing. However, I want to thank Mr. Denis for the great preamble today.
It appears clear that you're saying that an amendment is not necessary in spite of the fact that Madame Legault indicated that might be the way to go. You do indicate on the last page of your remarks that you are prepared to give us some other ideas as to how we might proceed. I'd like to follow up on that later. But prior to that question, if I could just ask you, if we were to go the route of calling for an amendment to the act, what would you see as some of the primary, unintended consequences that could come from that kind of procedure?
It would seem to me that by placing an amendment in the act, we may be making provision for some exclusion that we may not have foreseen, and we'd have to come back many times to revisit that. Could you comment on some unintended consequences? Then following that, are you prepared to give us a bit of a heads-up on some of the ideas that you allude to under paragraph 22 of your remarks today?