Be careful what you joke about, Mr. Kingsley. That might appear as an endorsement in literature down the road.
I have one last question, again dragging you back to Bill C-21, which at the moment we're sort of working within. We're open to opening it up, I suppose.
You said something very interesting about how you had to make judgments about making extensions, often on a no-information basis, and using a presumption of good faith on the part of the person asking for the extension. Mr. Mayrand also spoke about the problems in the current bill. Section 405.6 deals with the circumstances under which an unpaid amount doesn't become a deemed contribution—that's another area of confusion—at the end of three years if one of four things has occurred.
One is the loan is subject to a binding agreement that effectively means you have almost a new loan, and another one is that it's been written off by the lender as an uncollectable debt.
Basically I think he was saying that if he was going to have those functions, he was going to need access to more information than he currently had.
I assume you would agree with that and that we should be considering writing in informational requirements.