Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for inviting us to state our opinion on the board of referees and its procedures. First I want to tell you that a number of points that we're going to raise about the procedures are peripheral. So I may hear a few points of order being raised during my presentation.
The issue of appointments has been raised, and I won't go back over it. I say it's peripheral because it can have an impact. In the brief I sent you, I cite the example of one chair of a board of referees—and I won't tell you the name I give him in everyday life—who is completely lost. We tell him what page we're on and he turns over the pages for half an hour. He's utterly unable to follow, to the point where the other members of the board have to get up and show him the page. When we tell him it's time to focus on the case in view of the fact that we've been in the room for an hour and a half, he becomes aggressive. As I mentioned in the brief, the other members of the board of referees had to request an adjournment on two occasions because I was about to crawl across the table. The appointment criteria have been mentioned, but I believe that the cognitive faculties of one board chair should also be assessed.
I would also like to talk about the rare cases that I do not win. One board chair was appointed, but, curiously, that gentleman was a Conservative Party candidate in the last election campaign—