In the course of our analysis and in terms of the work and mandate of the major projects management office, we have looked at a number of different jurisdictions and what they've done in their experiences in managing major projects. Obviously, in terms of setting timelines on four major projects, both prior to implementing the legislative changes where we had a policy commitment to put in place these timeframes in these project agreements Jim talked about earlier, and now through the legislative changes, we're very cognizant of the fact that it wasn't about cutting corners.
It was about ensuring an efficient process, ensuring that we were able to deliver better outcomes at the end of those processes. Looking at the examples of what other countries have done and recognizing that it is a competitive investment environment out there and that we're competing for capital with our other jurisdictions that have resources as well, we need to capitalize on the opportunities while we have them. More important probably than the timeline itself is providing certainty to investors that we have a predictable timeframe in place and what they can expect coming into the process in terms of when they will receive a decision at the end of the day, so they can make their decisions and plan on capital accordingly.
Other jurisdictions, for example the European Union, I'm aware of have a timeline of 18 months from the receipt of a complete project application to review to making their final decisions. Like us, I believe those decisions can be made and effective decisions can be made within a timeframe of that length of time.