That actually might bring me pretty nicely to the next question I wanted to ask. One thing that relates to that as well is within some of the changes and recommendations that were being made by our commissioner, where there is more of a strict timeline on the annual reporting process, as an example, and I think there are others as well, where there's a very strict deadline in which members must complete that process.
One of the things that I feel...and you do hear it anecdotally from members from time to time here. I don't know if you hear it from members there as well. This is about the standards in terms of service, and maybe consistency in rulings as well, but more the standards in terms of the service. When you're talking about requiring members to complete their review, is there some kind of a service standard required of the commissioner's office as well? I guess it would kind of apply to that, where you're talking about applying some common sense but trying to apply to each situation depending on the circumstances. Obviously that would require a member to proactively come for advice on whether something would be acceptable for them to attend or not attend.
Has there been any consideration given in B.C., or what are your thoughts, on applying a specific service standard or a timeline in which those kinds of responses would be required from the commissioner's office in order for members to be able to make determinations as to what's appropriate for them to attend or not attend, or accept or not accept?