Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just trying to get back on my phone the amended amendment, the amendment with the subamendment.
I guess my issue with it is that we've already passed an amendment about the annual report. We can have, perhaps, a more robust explanation, even something along the lines of what you proposed, Ms. Collins. However, the point that Ms. Farquharson made earlier about the risk management measures that are being taken was that the department needs some flexibility in terms of deciding which to focus on, which ones are more important and are going to have more impact than others. I feel like putting in a requirement to explain what's happening and why it's happening and to then state when it will be done is kind of tying the department's hands in terms of flexibility to decide which one would be more important and to observe what's happening in real time.
My understanding from talking to the officials now is that there is a lot of assessment going on in the department. Perhaps I could make a subamendment that doesn't say that the timelines will be established but rather that estimated timelines are to be listed, or something to that effect, so that it's not requiring a definite timeline on what will happen.
In some respects, a definite timeline does two things. One, in my mind, it adds to the administrative burden, and two, it constrains the ability of the department to make judgments on its own about where it should be putting its efforts in terms of efficacy as things unfold.
I don't know if you understand what I mean, but in her earlier comments, Ms. Farquharson was saying that they constantly have to make trade-offs about this. I'm not sure that what we're doing here is helping the department to actually most effectively do what we're asking it to do.