To speak to your last point, and to what Darren had to say, I agree. What typically happens with a committee is that you get into something and then you leave it because, if you are writing a report for example, the analysts have to go away and write it. That takes time, and then a few weeks later we come back. It is quite normal for committees to have a few things up in the air, because otherwise you just have to wait for the report to be written and do nothing in the meantime, so you are working on other things.
As for the question of how you close it and know that when you're done, you're done, it goes both ways. The one we have on CEPA is a bit open-ended because it is large. It's a big act, and it is going to go into the fall.
I sat on finance before this. In finance, everybody and their dogs want to testify, and you just have to put a limit on it. Otherwise, you'd never get to actually finish, and it becomes quite additive after a while. You'll get one industry group that repeats what the one before it said, which is nuanced off the one before. At some point you say, “Okay, we get it. You want this tax measure.” It's the same on the environment. You could have 40 environment groups in here talking about water, and 60% to 80% or more are going to be very similar, so you cut the list. Otherwise you'd be here forever. In the past, sometimes governments have used that as a tactic where you get 15 meetings on something that needs three, just as way to not talk about something that they'd rather not.
Time is what we play with here.