Well, I don't know. Maybe I'll use the example again, without asking you to specifically comment on Linda Keen.
Parliament did have a very difficult decision to make--and it had to make it almost immediately--as to whether to restart the reactors. It had to have an emergency debate. It had to weigh that information and make that decision in a very quick fashion. I think Parliament has demonstrated that it has the capacity to deal with major issues that are put before it.
I understand your comment about the establishment of case law, jurisprudence, but the problem--and you would be aware of this--is that this doesn't stop these processes from going to the courts. Just because there's well-established case law does not mean that people decide they're not going to go to court. Cases happen all the time as a result of this.
Even if there is well-established case law, I don't see that if somebody is in the type of situation we've seen that they wouldn't take it there for perhaps other purposes. That's a process that can take months and months, if not years. A parliamentary process could be very targeted, particularly if there were an urgency associated with it. Parliament could deal with it in a very timely fashion, in the same way it dealt with the very difficult decision with Chalk River.