Okay. Well, I didn't see it, so let me say that first of all. I didn't see the program. Somebody told me that there were people who were representing members who were actors. I don't know, so I probably shouldn't have said that.
What I will say about that is that, look, what I find disturbing is not the members' characterization of the nature of the threat they face and the way in which the organization prepares them to face that threat. That's a fair conversation. We should have it and we do have it every day. What I find troubling is the characterization of the Moncton murders, the use of the Moncton murders, to represent a shortfall and make a leap in analysis that I don't think is supported by the facts. It's a very complex situation.
I think the report we did and the changes that we're bringing as to how the organization is run is a transparent, full, thorough accounting of shortcomings on the organization's part and a plan to fix them. I just didn't think that was a fair characterization of the challenge.