I can support Réal's position, in part. I know we have to look at the report. We can do that quickly. For those who were on the committee before, it's just a matter of giving that briefing that puts things back into perspective.
But the report took a certain direction. There were some preconceived points. The terms of reference seemed to be established before all evidence was supported. In part, the report still may take that bent, if you will. But there's going to be some question of doubt, because you're looking at two philosophical points of view.
If you look at some of the things that are happening in other jurisdictions, then the recommendations in that report--not all of them--are going to fit that viewpoint. They're going to go off in another direction, and the recommendations could very well be substantially different.
How we are going to handle that, is the question. The minute you start incorporating another point of view, which was expressed from witnesses--and not just as a passing reference, they were substantial points of view--you're going to have a report that probably will be inconclusive, because there are two further positions that need examination. That's my concern about where we're at.
Now if we start incorporating all of the presentations and all the evidence, are we going to stay with the same trend that the report focused on, or are we going to incorporate other things? If so, then what is that report going to look like? If not--and this is going to have to be an agreement with the committee--then is a minority report going to be substantial? I know there are two points of view here that will be split.