Quite frankly, it wasn't about being fortunate or unfortunate. I was just trying to see whether there was any more information out there than we already have on that point.
Part of what's happening here is that Parliament in its wisdom gave these powers and did so over the concerns of some of the stakeholders and over some of the advice coming to us. We're now three years out. It's pretty normal when you're uncertain about a piece of legislation...well, not uncertain--I think that's going too far--but when you want to be cautious on a piece of new legislation, especially when you're giving powers like this that are unusual, to put in the three-year review.
I just want to run something by you. This committee will have to draft some recommendations that we'll put forward to Parliament. Other people have talked about ways of delineating, and you've certainly given some suggestions. I'd like to hear your thoughts about a recommendation from this committee for the government to go to the enacting legislation for a review in another three-year time period. In other words, maybe not a constant review, but one more review when more time has elapsed in the use of this. We have noted that some jurisdictions in Canada haven't used this section at all at this point in time.
Can you give us some thoughts on that? I'm not advocating for or against it; I'm just laying it on the table.