Thank you, Mr. Chair. I listened intently to committee's report on this recommendation. I am just wondering -- well, I guess I can't wonder; this isn't question period. These things are best dealt with by way of statute. You can do anything in regulations, just about, if pursuant to the contents of the act. My concern here is that those regulations may be a long time coming, and they may not be as forthcoming as we may want.

I think that, as the committee noted, there needs to be some explanation given to people who are turned down. It would have been nice to see that coming forward in legislation. The committee that I serve on has dealt with a number of these kind of decision-making pieces, and written reasons have often been sought by the committee and agreed to. We have seen that come forward. I think it is unfortunate that that didn't make it into the bill, and I know that was contemplated by committee.

Although I support this recommendation, I don't think that it goes far enough. We should be giving certainty to the public and to stakeholders that, when they are rejected for qualifications or for certification, that there is something coming to tell them exactly why. Right now, apart from the goodwill that this motion represents, there is no requirement in law for them to do so. You might just be told "no," and that's it, without any way to understand why the decision was made. I think it is imperative that, as on overall thing, government and this Assembly endeavours to ensure that written reasons around decision-making, when sought, are put into law as much as possible. Clearly that was not possible by committee, so this recommendation will have to suffice. Thank you.