Thank you for that.
There'd obviously be no objection to including such a review provision three years down the road. I think the necessity of recourse to that type of provision would in part depend on how much we want to restrain the legislation as it exists currently. If we put in a sufficient number of guidelines, there may be a way of providing for ongoing supervision by way of more public reporting, by way of a senior official, or perhaps, as some of your colleagues suggested in prior discussions, through a judge. This way we could be getting day-to-day, month-to-month, or year-to-year reporting, rather than waiting three years.
If we decide to leave the legislation as is, I'd be tempted to agree with your suggestion--not to suggest that you are leaning in favour or against. But it might be important to look three years down the road again, because as many of the witnesses who have appeared before you, such as the persons from the RCMP, have suggested, we actually have very little right now by which to judge this legislation