I think there are a couple of things. One is that, as I've said probably too many times already, one of the critical recommendations we came up with was to have a much more transparent and clear policy framework around these issues.
I don't want to get too technical, but I think it's also perhaps worth noting that we can be talking about different kinds of insurance coverage. For example, when you have a moment, you can have a look at the little chart that we have at page 150 of the report.
That can be found on page 165 of the French document.
In table form, it sets out the kind of insurance that was in place, according to our information. One of them was liability insurance. In other words, if someone does something and is at fault and might be held legally responsible for being at fault, that's the kind of insurance that would deal with that. We also note that there's accidental death and dismemberment insurance. That's the kind of coverage that would be available for people who are injured in a true accident. In that instance, nobody is legally at fault. I think it's important not to mix up those two kinds of coverage. It's clear, I think, from what we've heard, that there needs to be greater clarity on the part of Hockey Canada as to what is available in both baskets and how the board is, ultimately, going to decide what's going to happen.