Sure. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
In terms of the reasonableness of timelines, perhaps I'll provide a little context in terms of how the original timelines were identified for this.
Speaking first around the government response, the proposed 120 days was actually taken to reflect the current standards that are in place for the House committees. When a committee of your nature issues a report, the government provides 120 days. That was used as a model for the council in terms of the government response.
For the initial council, I'll allow my colleagues to speak to this if they have more knowledge around it, but I think six months was to ensure that the council was provided with adequate time to be able to produce a very thoughtful report, given the breadth of work that is anticipated to be before it. Especially since, as we know, the end of fiscal year certainly can be quite busy, for this organization, as it's being set up, we wanted to make sure that six months was the maximum time, we'll say, but that does not prevent them from reporting earlier.
Certainly we'd be ready to respond if it did come in earlier, but in wanting to ensure maximum flexibility, six months was seen as what would be able to provide that.
I don't know if colleagues want to add to that.