There is one thing that continually comes up at the beginning of our discussions when we are questioning our witnesses, and Ms. Mendes highlighted it very well. It's this whole issue around the eight-day process. This seems to have taken over the first part of every witness presentation. There is an interpretation by every witness who has come to present here that the eight-day process is going to lead to some form of outcome in terms of a decision.
We need to be clear that there are no fully set out regulations concerning what the eight-day process would look like. I'd like it if witnesses would actually give us some suggestions as to what they think should be in that eight-day process, or whether they think it should be a little longer. I know that most witnesses do; they can certainly put that on the table. But to suggest that the eight-day process is some sort of interview resulting in a decision is simply incorrect. For the record, I think we need to get that straightened out, and if it has to be done each time a panel comes to committee, I think it is critical and important.
Ms. Mendes asked about the eight-day process and then the sixty-day process that would follow. I want to quickly clear up that those are not actually in the legislation. Neither of them is in the legislation. They are going to be dealt with under the regulations that will be completed after the legislation is passed.
I will turn it back over to Ms. Wong.
But there definitely is a misinterpretation of what the initial process stands for. I think Mr. Van Kessel did a decent job of describing it. It's the ability to collect information as quickly as possible to the benefit of the applicant. It is not judicial. It is not quasi-judicial. It is not, in any form, some sort of legal representation or presentation that would be defined under legal structure. It is a process to assist, in every way that it can, the individual who is making the application.