When the parliamentary secretary says we may have a lengthy and costly review over no changes, no indication of any problems, because we haven't done enough reviews, that's logically inconsistent. Either there is going to be an extensive review because problems show up, or there is going to be a very quick analysis of what's happening, based on the fact that no problems have shown up.
I think his argument on cost is not quite logical, and he should take another look at that because it doesn't work. Clearly—