Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I participated in the review of the bill. And I want to say I support the bill, except for the name change. And the other items in here, though, are good items that are covered here. They are in response to three independent reviews that were done of BDIC. And if I get the dates right, 2013, 2014, 20 -- I don't know -- 16 or something, 2018. Anyways, that part of the bill, I don't have any problems with, and I think they're helpful changes that will allow BDIC to do more of what it can and should be doing.

The name change, though, very problematic. And look, I want BDIC to be independent. I want them to be arm's length from the government. I want them to have a full functioning board that's probably more representative than what's there now. And I might speak to that a little bit more. But, you know, the name change was not part of the whole plan. You know, we got a legislative proposal as Regular MLAs. Can't talk about it. But what I can talk about is the discussion paper that was put out. The public engagement that was undertaken. The name change wasn't part of that process. And all of a sudden, it bubbled up in the bill. It was a complete surprise to committee. So we tried to find out what it was all about. We had to ask, I think, three times to get the information. Committee shouldn't have to ask three times to get information, and committee was ready to use its power to compel production of a document. That doesn't happen very often in the eight years I've been here. I just don't know why it had to go that far.

So the Minister talked about how, in her view, this was a well-informed decision. When committee got the documentation -- and I can't talk about it because it's top secret -- there was -- well, I think I can say that there was nothing in there about a name change. So then we had to go back and ask a second time, where's the information -- where's the background stuff for the name change. So then we got some more stuff.

And I disagree completely with the Minister's assessment that this is a well-informed decision. And I respect the board. I want boards to be independent. But it's not a well-informed decision. I read the stuff. I'm a details guy. And I don't think it was done well. So anyways, one question I do want to ask is can the Minister agree to make that background work -- and if some of it needs to be redacted in some way, can the Minister agree to make that information public? Thank you, Madam Chair.