Thank you for that, Ms. Khalid.
Look, I'm not looking to shelve anything. I'm going to do what the will of the committee asks me to do.
I do have some concerns, and I think I've stated those concerns in the past. We'll be dealing with a series of recommendations, which the committee could be putting forward in the report, that could be completely contrary to or could contradict what the national security review outlines. I don't want to put something out there in the public realm and then have it come back to us after we've adopted the report and presented it to Parliament. That's my concern.
I'm indifferent either way on this report. I think it was a good study. We had some good witnesses come in. I just don't want any of the recommendations we made to be counter to the work that ISED is doing.
I will address one thing, which is the letter we had asked for. If you recall, when we came out of the previous two-week constituency break, I informally asked ISED about the timelines, because that's what the committee had asked me to do. They said they were not prepared to give me an informal response, but the committee received a formal response yesterday. In that response, they talked about 200 days.
I agree with you, Ms. Khalid, that there is no clarity on those 200 days. Did they start when the first public reports came out that said they were doing a security review in September, or do they start now? I don't know that, so I certainly agree with you on the timeline and how long it would take. It could be 200 days from tomorrow. I don't know.
I have Mr. Fisher now, and then I saw Mr. Green's hand up.
Go ahead, please.