I just took a standard clause we put in other legislation that was somewhat controversial, so that there would be a review.
I'm not set on the nature or the details of the motion. I just took a motion section from another act so that it would at least be legal, and because we've had a long discussion today about things that we think are potentially controversial. We have placed a lot more onus on a machine which, according to the evidence we had this afternoon, wasn't even maintained properly, according to schedule, and which cannot even be videotaped. I think there's a lot of potential.
A number of the witnesses—people who are practising in the courts every day—said that there are all sorts of problems that are going to be raised because of this bill. I'm not always in favour of reviews of a bill, but I think within five years we can revisit it and see if it is actually—Of course we have the DRE, the whole drug thing, which in itself is a new type of mechanism to solve the problem that we want to solve. All these things raise a lot of questions among the witnesses. I think we should review it to see how it's working out.