When you say “deal with” it, do you mean accept it as it is or do something a little differently? I think this is perhaps a good opportunity for you to provide advice to the committee on how we achieve what Mr. Bachand has suggested, so that the changes to the act don't lapse the five-year review that has yet to be completed and tabled.
I understood from your evidence earlier as part of this process that indeed a review was going on and that you were going to continue it, but I think the desire of Mr. Bachand--and certainly, it's my desire, and I would assume it's the desire of the whole committee--is that it be done as part of the process envisaged by Chief Justice Lamer and incorporated in the existing legislation, that there not be a 12-year review, in other words, that the five-year review that is contemplated actually takes place even if it takes an extra year to do it.
So can I ask you to tell us how we can best achieve that within the context of the legislation? Do we have to do BQ-14 and BQ-15 or some version of BQ-14 and BQ-15? Because if Mr. Bachand withdraws it, I'm prepared to move it, if necessary.