I have one quick response.
I hear Mr. MacKenzie's point, and it's a fair one. I suppose Parliament can always review a bill. But two things strike me. One is that this bill, when it was originally passed, contained a requirement for statutory review, so it clearly is done. That's why we're here.
The second thing is that we may or may not undertake a review in two years. This would make it clear that this committee would have to come back and review these things. I would just emphasize again that these are two very significant changes to the original framework of the act. I don't see any harm in parliamentarians reviewing our own work to see how it works in practice. I'm mindful of the fact that it took five years before. I don't know why that happened. I wasn't here. I think we should keep to our calendar, but because it's such a focus-limited inquiry, for those two aspects we should easily be able to do it in two years and do it quite quickly.
Those are my final remarks.