With respect, your claim that there were no consultations, that somehow this LIFO policy was kind of foisted on the industry unbeknownst to anybody in the dark of the night, that's a claim we will investigate with the panel that's following you, with the minister.
But I'm curious about your explanation. When the stock started to fall in 2010 and 2011, it was clear that there were going to have to be some reductions. On what approach would be followed then, my understanding is—let me at least propose this—they followed this arrangement that had been in place since 1997, that there would be reductions based on the percentages that they went up. There were some questions in 2011 and 2012 whether this was the right approach, and an independent review was done of this. It clearly concluded that “It appears that...the appropriate departmental policies, principles and methodologies were used in the decision-making process.” That's a quote from the report. Another reads: “It appears that the policies, principles and methodology have been interpreted and employed correctly and consistently with the definition of the last in, first out principle...”.
Here's my final question, because I think I'm running out of time. It's not clear to me whether you're saying that the department really didn't follow the right principles in 1997 and 2003 and then in 2007, and they kind of misinterpreted and misapplied these principles when it came time to reduce, or you're saying that yes, they did the right thing based on the policies that they had, but the policy is wrong and needs to be changed.