I'll stop you there, because you've just hit my second question. That's one of the recommendations I believe Mr. Shur had.
I'm not going to the British model, because quite frankly ours is far superior to theirs, and we shouldn't waste any time talking or thinking about it. I think that because of our proximity to the United States and the societal relationships we have, we bear some of the same burdens from a law enforcement perspective.
It's very dangerous, I suppose, to ask the policemen this, but we're seriously thinking about a need for a periodic review of the program so that parliamentarians can feel better about it and so that we can have our constituents and Canada feel better about the program, in that it is working as we anticipated it should because we in fact made the law that made it work.
Could I have your thoughts on, first, a periodic review--my thinking is every three or five years--and then on a civilian oversight body? I think you addressed this, but succinctly give us your thoughts on a civilian oversight body that actually decides who should or shouldn't be in the program--or maybe, again, this periodic review should be a civilian body that examines that.