Thank you very much for your respective submissions.
Mr. Stewart-Patterson, you made two comments in reference to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You note the following on page 1 of your submission:
It reassured investors by providing tough new rules and penalties, but also was hastily drafted and highly complex, creating months of headaches for regulators and continuing huge compliance costs for companies.
You further noted on page 2:
But as with Sarbanes-Oxley, we would ask whether the political desire to move quickly may lead to an excess of new rules that may in time prove counter-productive.
We've heard from Ms. Flis and from other witnesses who have preceded you about some of the restrictions resulting from the changes to the rules affecting the volunteer sector that receives government contributions. These changes are beginning to impede their work and to reduce the level of services volunteer agencies can provide.
Experience has shown that over the past 15 years, for example, it has taken Parliament 200 days on average to adopt a bill with this number of provisions and with such sweeping implications for other acts. The aim of the government is to guide this bill through all stages in the House, if not in the Senate, in under 40 days.
Given the bill's complexity, do you feel that we are giving ourselves enough time to ensure that any changes adopted will not ultimately prove counter-productive?