I would add on the timelines point that it is particularly with respect to the NIRB portion of the review process, not the planning commission's portion, where we saw opportunities for improvement.
I would also emphasize that when we referred to offences under the land use plan, what we found unusual was the criminal offences that are there, and I would agree completely with the point that land use planning without any measure to enforce it is meaningless. I would agree with that. It was the Criminal Code offences that we found to be somewhat heavy-handed.
Also, with respect to minor variances, what we have been suggesting is that the planning commission itself have the discretion to make those determinations. We're not suggesting that minor variances be granted willy-nilly without public review, but we have full confidence in the commission's ability to determine, from time to time, if something is of really minimal consequence and doesn't merit a full comprehensive review by the public. They should have the discretion to do that. They have such a unique role as the people's body, in a sense, that we thought they could have the discretion to do that, but it would be their decision and nobody else's.
I just wanted to emphasize those three points.