Thanks, Chair.
I think the reason that it came to our attention the way it did is that the process has been in place for some time, but normally there is the media on it. The fact that there was certainly media before we saw it caught us all off guard.
You did mention towards the end, Mr. Ferguson, that it could be subject to a public hearing by us. You're very familiar now with our procedures, our routines, and how we conduct and go about choosing chapters, etc. It's very different, of course, because of the procedure that unfolds when you table your full report.
My question would be—and you don't have to answer it right now—are there any recommended changes that you would make to that process? In other words, do you see a deficiency in that process as opposed to what we normally do with your report? I have to tell you, they don't come to us in that same fashion because they're public first, so they're very different. I wonder if you think there's any need for us to look at trying to align them up a little more so that we don't have this uniqueness, or is that uniqueness justified and this is just fine the way it is, in your opinion?