I think that is probably correct.
One of the things I would say is that it's always interesting. As a researcher, I've been invited to a number of these hearings, and Parliament...as a group, you have a certain set of ideas. Judges may, five years later, find that it's not going to be.... That's why I think probably a periodic review is very good.
To be candid, my own view was that the Supreme Court of Canada in C.D., and that's a big part of the problem, took a too narrow approach. Whatever words are used, you'll have to see how they're interpreted by the courts, both by the appellate courts and by the trial courts, on what's going to be the overall impact of these kinds of legislative changes.