I appreciate the clarification because initially it sounded as if we would be layering. I wanted to make sure that we weren't doing that.
I agree, by the way, that your clients have a right to ask what the request was. If you have a process where there was a complaint about something, you will then have something to point to on paper and say that this is what was requested. Then you can go ahead and go through the process. I really appreciate that clarification, Mr. de Valk. I think it's important that we understand that for clause 24 and don't start thinking, “My goodness, now where are we headed?”
The other side of it is, you talked earlier about the review process. You pointed to the Senate amendment, the five-year step, as being a good one. One of the things we've asked for is to benchmark so that in five years, we’ll know what we have marked from. I agree with you. We don't know what the number is; it could be less, it could be more. It's always assumed that when this side asks a question that we're looking for more. That's not necessarily true. We're actually looking for the number that it should be, whatever that number is. Quite frankly, I really don't know what it should be. It's not for me to determine the number. I think that's what an independent audit would do.
If we benchmarked the number now, is that really the benchmark? My argument has been to figure out what it should be now, and then review it so we know what we've got in five years. I still maintain that if you don't do it now, you'll know something in five years, but you'll know a heck of a lot more in 10 years because you'll measure it against the five.