You ask some good questions.
On the issue of positive feedback, we didn't receive much, to be honest. But that doesn't mean that we feel negatively. If I conveyed the idea that we feel negatively toward the commission, I apologize. We tried to write our report so as not to suggest that they had done anything improper or wrong, or were indolent or unprofessional. In fact, our emphasis on the need for a better research budget, for example, is in line with our view that they actually performed extremely well, given the limitations of their budget.
On the issue of transparency, you're right, unfortunately. But you're only half right. Transparency isn't always compromised because observers have their eyes closed. Sometimes, it's compromised because things actually are hidden. There's a problem with particular assistant commissioners. I don't want to focus on that, and I don't consider it the high point of our report. But there's a problem. It's as if the junior people in your office were appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. It's bizarre. You have to appoint the people in your office yourself, not somebody else. There's a problem of transparency and accountability there.
What else did you ask?