Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through this whole process -- and the media term as to the harshness of the rulings that were made -- I've stayed out of the picture, because they are a quasi-judicial board told to do things. They have an act to follow. They've done that and I haven't interfered with that process. I did state, when I met with the Liquor Licensing Board, that if there were concerns to please work through me and I will initiate a process. If there are concerns around enforcement, I will work with the Minister of Justice to try and do that. Is there an education factor? I will work with one of the other Ministers that can help support that initiative. If it's from within, we'll do that.
Mr. Speaker, in my initial meeting with the chairperson of the day, Mr. Simpson, and again with the board, there were a number of issues we discussed. I didn't have red flags thrown my way to say here are critical issues that are not working. I did hear and have seen some e-mails about some frustration dealing with department officials. Mr. Speaker, again, we have to look at what authorities we have and how far we can go. If there were those concerns and they were that drastic, then I would have liked to have heard from them personally in a one-on-one instead of going about this route that we have now seen. I don't think it's appropriate that we air out this concern in a public way where it's aimed at one or two individuals within a department or even to the board itself. I would have much more appreciated the fact that we could have sat down, discussed the issues and I could have sort of set a course of action in place and tried to work it out that way.
I still think there are some valid points made and we're going to work to improving that but, Mr. Speaker, there's obviously quite a difference from what the Member has raised to me here and what I've heard in the media than the letter I received from the individual. So there's very different messaging going on there and that is somewhat disappointing. Thank you.
----Applause