First of all, it was advice to the minister, so under my oath when I was a chair, I cannot share the advice I gave to the minister.
What were the issues? I can talk about what the issues were. The issue was governance from the point of view of two things. One, with the arrival of the Accountability Act and the new responsibility of deputy heads and heads of agencies, it became clear that you had to make sure that the accountability of the chair is meeting the standard and that the chair is not vulnerable with respect to the management of the board. The way we're divided now, the chair has a position called executive director, and the two vice-presidents weren't accountable at the end of the day. I ended up with the accountability. There is no problem with that, but let's make sure that it's clear to everyone where the accountability lies. You need to clarify accountability with respect to the performance of the board, with respect to ethics, values, and how we render justice.
The second thing in the organization is public servants supporting decision-makers, and you try to clarify the line between both in terms of the management, of the accountabilities, etc. It is most difficult right now. The lines are blurred. We tried a few models and we're working with some: that public servants look into case management, and Governor in Council appointees render decisions and have strategic policy direction on some issues. It's there, but it needs more clarity and it needs more refinement.
Third, there's an overlap on management, and that has to be addressed. There is too much management.