Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I am interested in hearing more about this compromise, but the way this has been written, you know, this bill is coming forward a year later than it should have under the mandate commitment. I think there are people out there expecting that they are going to be able to access the services that may be provided under this act.

Having this kind of restriction on the mandate of the Ombud is not helpful at all in terms of resolution of complaints that may come forward from our constituents. I have expressed this concern to the Minister. We are not even sure what the word "commencement" means in terms of the context of this bill; does it mean when the Ombud is appointed or when the legislation receives assent? I think there are some issues around that as well.

This is the bill that I really and probably will die on in terms of this bill. This is not good. We shouldn't have this kind of restriction on the mandate of the Ombud in the bill. The Ombud should have the ability to, and has discretion to, accept complaints. This matter of reaching back into time, that is something that the Ombud should be left with a discretion to do; to do that if necessary and make up his or her mind about whether there is a valid complaint. Putting in artificial restriction in here is not, I think, going to satisfy our residents. I don't think it's good drafting, and quite frankly, I think it's against open government and it's against transparency and public engagement, which this Minister stands for. Thanks, Mr. Chair.