In any institution, I think that it usually takes several failures before a decision is made to completely abandon a practice. In the situation at hand, you said that the issue involved an isolated case and that you had never seen anything like it in your career. However, the decision was made to immediately eliminate this practice.
Perhaps in this case, rather than pointing the finger at the people who made a bad decision, the goal is to discredit Quebec's practices. As we know, these practices are different from the practices in other parts of Canada.
Do you think that blaming Maison Painchaud is a bad excuse as we try to resolve the situation?