You say, and I'm quoting you here from the top of page 2:
...while we respect the role of the courts, it's for the members of this committee of the House to rule on what the act intended to do.
With all respect, I would argue that our role, as parliamentarians and as legislators, is to make acts as clear as we can, and our intent as clear as it can be. None of these gentlemen were here in 1981, so none of them are to blame for any lack of clarity, if you will, in that act. However, I would disagree, in that it is not our role to interpret legislation. Once it is set by Parliament it is the court's role to interpret, and that's what the courts did in this case. So I have to disagree with that part of your testimony.
Can you give me the relative size of the business 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today? Roughly.