I have perhaps a partial explanation for it.
Certainly when the government first took office, as we know, their top priority was the Federal Accountability Act. That took a tremendous amount of effort at the front end, and concentration. But even during that period, the President of the Treasury Board, in introducing the action plan related to the proposed Accountability Act, signalled his interest in re-establishment of the policy.
That work then folded into research we were doing at the secretariat around how the panel would be reconstructed. Was there any new advice we wanted to offer? Basically, it was seatwork we did inside the secretariat so that we could brief officials within the secretariat, to the effect that we felt re-establishment of the panel was the right thing to do.
The next occasion when the president spoke about it was, I believe, in June at one of the standing committees—on legal affairs, I think it was—where again he indicated his ongoing interest.
The period of time, though, that has elapsed—to come to your question more directly—has had to do with our briefings internally and our discussions with the agents around their ongoing interest. We wanted to be sure we got their input as to how they felt this had gone to date and whether indeed they were interested in re-engaging.
So while there was a bit of, I would call it, a slow ramp-up, I understand that things have hit a bit of a steep incline over the past week or two, where calls have now been made at a political level. The whips are, I understand, currently engaged in looking at the membership issue.