In fact, Mr. Chair, we consider this to be a very important element because we want to avoid, first of all, duplication. We want to make sure that our role is complementary and, if there is a process ongoing, that we're not seen as interjecting inappropriately.
With respect to what constitutes a wrongdoing, again it's still early days, and we're also guided by some eminent jurists as well as by some retired Supreme Court judges. You have to look at it in a very practical way. We're not, as well, management consultants. We have to be very careful. This is not our role.
We have to situate it within the act. Does it fit the definition of the act? Again, it doesn't mean that from the prevention angle...and this is the liberty that we took, again with the blessing of Parliament, some of your colleagues, and jurists, to indicate areas of vulnerability.
So we want to look at it next year more closely. But do we talk to other officers, other heads of tribunals, to look at their approaches? Absolutely. This, we think, is our obligation.