Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly don't have as nearly as passionate opinion on this one as my previous colleagues but I would just say that, you know, as a Member of the committee, committee had a discussion about this, made the recommendation that we did and, you know, I was in favour of it there, and so I'll support it here and would just note that I think my experience of referrals of matters -- sorry, of Members' statements to Committee of the Whole so far is that a bunch of them have been referred. We've yet to actually debate one. It does seem like something that is not a big issue right now. And, certainly, as a Member of the committee, I would be happy to see a referral of this back if need be because the rule is being abused in some way or it's not providing the opportunity for the fulsome debate that my colleagues are speaking about. Certainly, this is something that can easily be referred back to the committee. It's definitely not the busiest committee in the Assembly, and we have the time to review such things. So I'd be happy to review it again. But I would just say, you know, committee made the recommendation. I'm in favour of following the committee's recommendation. I don't think that this one is going to cause as much trouble as some of the Ministers feel it might. And, you know, if there's any indication to me that that's starting to become the case, I'll happily be a part of reviewing it again and taking a second look at it.

But as the Member pointed out, the Member for Range Lake, I mean the rule exists already that Ministers' statements can be referred to Committee of the Whole so this is just putting some parameters around that and the debate itself that might ensue could potentially be more useful to the Assembly. I think it stands to be seen whether or not it's going to be used very much at all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.