Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just in terms of comparing these two motions, I think one of the critical pieces in the amendment we're debating right now is the explicit tie-in to the measures proposed in the statement—the statement being the risk management plan. That is, if we lose this kind of general requirement for updates on timelines in the annual report, the fear is that we'll just see vague statements that other planned work is proceeding and it's soon going to be published and there will be an explanation for delays only when the delayed opposed measures are finally published. That would be way less useful. The amendment we're discussing right now, which we'll be voting on, sets up a check-in on implementation of risk management plans after two years, and that is the critical part.
I understand that the CEPA clock has 24 months versus the 42 months, and if it would make committee members and officials feel more comfortable, we could change my amendment, which currently says “the Minister having published all of the regulations or instruments” to “the Minister having published all of the proposed regulations or instruments” regarding the instruments proposed in the statement. That would really talk about the first 24 months, a two-year piece, and it would limit any kind of administrative burden.
However, I just want to reiterate. I read off those statistics about how many of these are being published each year, and it was zero to five. I think we should have capacity to deal with that number. Mostly, on average, it seemed to be two or three each year. I hope we'll keep in this critical part about the two-year check-in. If it would make committee members feel more comfortable, then we could just add that one word, to have “all of the proposed regulations or instruments” in the statement.
Of course, I can't amend my own amendment—