Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm supportive of this legislation except for perhaps one section, which I'll comment to when we get there. But I wanted to talk about what I'm happy with the changes made to the Integrity Commissioner, and I just want to kind of summarize them for the public's notice.

So we used to have a process where when a complaint was referred to the Integrity Commissioner, and there's been a few this Assembly, he was forced to either, you know, find that there was grounds and order a public hearing, which we had and which cost us a few hundred thousand dollars and was very lengthy and complicated, or dismiss the complaint. There was kind of no middle ground, and I think many of us and the public and lots of people would have liked some sort of off-ramp. And so now we've amended it to give our Integrity Commissioner a few options. You know, he can refer the matter to some sort of alternative dispute resolution if that is appropriate; he can still order that public hearing if there are more facts and it's warranted; or he can right away, you know, after conducting an investigation, come out with a recommended penalty; or dismiss the complaint. So I think, you know, this is the way it's done in many other, if not all, jurisdictions, and I think giving that Integrity Commissioner a bit more authority of how to deal with complaints is a good step and is something I wish we had during this Assembly. But it's a good change. So I'm supportive of that. And I would like to thank all of our Members for the work that has gone into making these changes. Thank you.