Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Collins.
Again, we have two seemingly similar amendments that we're looking at here, one put forward by Ms. Collins and one put forward by Mr. Longfield. We're trying to assess which one is going to land on the most accountability with the least diversion of resources.
We'd like to make sure it ties in with the current regulatory system as far as timelines go, so I'm going to ask the officials here to comment on what they were saying on Thursday about this matter, about the 24 months plus 18 months. What we don't want to accomplish here is to push an extra burden after the 24 months, but if the 24 plus 18 is indicative of the process we have to go through here, if there's a time clock that should be reset here but we want that accountability of reporting through the annual report as a result of any delays that might happen here...and the clear establishment of “here's our new timeline on this” if we're missing what you described, Ms. Farquharson, as 24 months before you put it in the Canada Gazette plus 18 months of hearings on that Canada Gazette process....
If there's a better number as far as the accountability time period is concerned, we would like to hear it from you to make sure that it meshes with what we're doing right now. I think that ties into the intent of both Ms. Collins' and Mr. Longfield's motions here.