Mr. Chairman, I think you can see....
I'll just explain it, Madame Lavallée. I just overheard you ask what the difference is.
The way it's worded right now, it's almost as if we've made the decision that having found that there were violations of the act, we are now working to determine what the nature of these violations had been. The point I'm making is that--I could be wrong, and maybe that was their intention to say that--we should not presuppose that violations have occurred. We are making assumptions that they could have occurred, and we're now investigating that and bringing witnesses forward in order to see whether or not these violations occurred and what their nature would have been. As a matter of fact, I think the way the chair wrote it down, it's violations in the plural. We're leaving the potential for more than one if they occurred. So essentially that's the goal here.
Yes, you can see how it's a little bit different from the English.