I want to ask you something about reading a statute such that it is not just harmonious but prevents possible duplication or inconsistency.
Something that's troubling me is this: If you look at section 63, it talks about this retrospective but also contemporaneous piece, because it looks at the circumstances of the invocation, as well as the measures undertaken. Compare that to section 62, which talks about the measures.
What I'm curious about is, if we open up the section 62 piece—which this parliamentary review committee is doing—much wider than it seems to be written, we have the potential to have two simultaneous investigations into the same subject matter, which could render opposite results.
Is that something we should be alive to and trying to avoid?