Thank you for the question.
That is a good point. We're certainly aware of the witnesses who have expressed concerns about what would be considered reasonable. We've tried to make it quite clear that it's “reasonable in the circumstances”. If the committee were to consider adding a timeline, it would be very difficult to determine if that outer timeline was reasonable as well, because 24 or 48 hours, as an example, might not be reasonable if you were in a remote location, and it would be excessive if you were in an urban centre where the police could have been contacted within that period of time.
We're quite confident that the courts will interpret “reasonable in the circumstances”, and in those cases that get interpreted by the courts, the law will settle it quite quickly.
There are pros and cons to having any sort of time limit, as opposed to leaving it with “reasonable”. As you've noted, the courts deals with the term “reasonable” all the time in various contexts. I don't think we have any reservations that they won't deal with it appropriately in this context.