As I said in my presentation, first, there were about 40 recommendations, if I'm not mistaken. Second, at the same moment, the board was made aware that parallel initiatives were taken by the department. We wanted to benefit from other studies being done in parallel with what we initiated.
The problem is also that when we did the consultations—either the working group itself with its eight members, plus the public consultations—the ones who could agree went from one end of the spectrum to the other. Maybe Gilles could give us some examples of things where they didn't agree. Some parties were asking the board to be more active within interrogatories. When they're in their interrogatories, the board should be active. Other parties said that would be contrary to natural justice and that the board should not be involved.
What do you do when one side says the board should be more active and the other side says the board should not be?