Thank you, Chair.
Again, I certainly applaud Ms. Chow's intent, in terms of how she wants to move forward and put in an indefinite period of time.
I would say to the committee that there is no precedence anywhere in our federal legislation for an indefinite period of time to be put forward on a summary conviction. There are, in fact, a number of other ministries that do, under summary conviction, stipulate a period of time following the act or the injustice, if you will. They include the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which says up to two years; the Competition Act, which says up to two years after the subject matter arose; the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, which actually says three years. This one's quite interesting: the Canadian Human Rights Act actually says one year after the subject matter of the proceedings arose. I can go on. There are a few more in here, Mr. Chairman.
I would suggest that whatever timeframe we put on this, we'll be setting a precedent in the legislation. We would be prepared to submit a subamendment giving a period of 10 years. I think, from a summary conviction perspective, a period of a decade would be more than enough time to pursue the matter, but I do think we need to differentiate between indictable offence and summary offence. Indictable has no time limit; summary convictions have always moved within a timeframe of somewhere between six months and a couple of years. So I would ask if she would consider a subamendment to say a period of 10 years.
I don't know whether Ms. MacNeil or Ms. Ménard would want to—