Thank you. I do understand that and I approve that interpretation. I think that's what we meant to do. I think it's the difference between medical opinion and medical evidence. I just wanted to make sure that we put it on record, so that people out there could feel comfort in how this legislation will be interpreted. In the remaining seconds, I just want to ask the panel on subsection (4). It states there that much of how this will be implemented will be written out in the policies and procedures. First of all, would the Minister and Governance Council be willing to set up some sort of stakeholders' consultation group to see how this policy will be written? It's really hard to ask what is going to be in that policy because I don't think anybody in that panel will have a say on that in the level of detail that I like to look at. I would like to know, for example, would the injured worker have a say on who the third medical opinion person will be? How can we be assured that it's somebody who is neutral or somebody who is going to be seen to be objective, somebody who could have that level of distance and objectivity? That's a big concern, whether justified or not. The workers want to make sure that when they go to a third party binding resolution process that they will get a full, fair hearing. So any information the Minister could give me to assure me, just any information on this section would be helpful. Thank you.