Mr. Chair, this motion addresses a longstanding situation that has confounded, I know it's confounded workers who have talked to me and, consequently, myself, and this relates to medical opinions. I think, thankfully, the vast majority of the injured workers who come before the WCB are dealt with in an expedient and professional and satisfactory manner, given that most conditions that come before them are pretty straightforward, from a medical point of view, and quite conventional. It's the ones that are less obvious or require more sort of interpretation or clinical diagnosis and require the WCB to exercise more discretion and more care in how it assesses them. Where workers have really come up against some issues here is that sometimes multiple specialists' assessments and recommendations are made, but they continue, for some reason, to conflict with the medical assessment made by the WCB itself. So we have this argument going on among professionals, and in the meantime the worker continues in limbo, potentially without a pension or without rehabilitation, until these conflicts are resolved. We are hoping through this motion, Madam Chair, to see that we could a have a process or a polity that would address these situations. However, the response indicates that the proposed solution is going to be a legislative one contained in the bill that we anticipate will be coming before us next week. So it doesn't give us anything to talk about here. It does say that the proposed solution is supported by the WCB, the Appeals Tribunal and, in principle, the NWT Medical Association. I guess I would like to say where are the workers or the workers' advocates, the employers? Have they been consulted in this proposed legislative solution and is it one that we, as a committee here, will be able to endorse?