Thank you very much.
Obviously there's a divergence of philosophy around the table. Anyway, I welcome all of you here today. I think your considered opinions are valued highly in this room and I hope our researchers are compiling all the lists of suggestions, so that when we sit down together to do our report, we'll have that in a very easy-to-understand format. I'm sure that with their competence, they're doing it on an ongoing basis.
It's true that this committee can do a review of anything it wants at any point in time without having a legislative enactment for its review, but the reality of the situation is that usually there are many pieces of not only government legislation coming at justice, but also private members' bills, and this committee gets busy very quickly--so I'm most enamoured of the idea of an ongoing review of this. I feel quite strongly that at this point in time we have insufficient material before us to properly evaluate. We would have a recommendation, but the reality is that the government would have to put an enactment, a change in their legislation, to mandate that review on an ongoing basis of, say, every three years.
I'd like to know from this side of the table, from our witnesses, whether you're in agreement with that concept of an ongoing three-year review, first off the bat. While you're responding to that, since you said you didn't get to all the material in your five-page document, if there's anything you want to put on the record, I'm prepared to give you the time to do so.