The way I tackled that issue in the second part of the bill, which is now mostly redundant as a result of the budget, was that “hazardous” would be defined by a medical practitioner. That individual would determine if the workplace environment was hazardous, but I don't want to preclude anything by saying that's the only way it can be done. I think the study should look at that was well.
I think somebody needs to oversee it, because every case is going to be a little bit different. Involving a medical practitioner is a natural and obvious choice, but I don't want to preclude anything by saying it's the only one.