Going back to his letter, I must confess, I found it bizarre to read one of the rationales for not even elaborating on why he disagreed or why the justice ministry disagreed. It says:
Still other recommendations would involve increased oversight and procedural and redress reforms including, for example, requiring a Parliamentary review of the ATIA every five years....
Is there something I'm missing, or is there a problem with that? Would that not be a good thing to help us avoid trying to fix something that's over a quarter of a century old by reviewing it every five years and updating it because of technology?