Thank you.
That concludes round one. We're going to start round two.
Before we go to round two, I have a question for Mr. Elliott, and it's a process-driven question.
I believe that at the end of the day we want a performance-driven accountability regime of the RCMP. We heard yesterday from the ethics adviser , the public complaints commissioner, and the other commissioner, and it seems to me that the checks and balances are—and I think most people agree with me—woefully inadequate and probably the governance structure has to be totally redone, although you did clarify, and you're quite correct, that the values are there and a lot of good work has been done. Going forward--and Mr. Lake asked you the question about your idea--you indicated that you wouldn't be making any changes until the task force reports, and that's very understandable. But on that process I have questions on basically three areas.
First, is the senior echelon of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police involved in the task force?
Second, you mentioned earlier talking to the public. I think that's a very important issue. This task force is behind closed doors. We don't know who they're talking to and what they're doing, but I believe there has to be a dialogue with the public, and especially the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The third one is perhaps much more complex—and it may be an unfair question because you've only been in the job for a couple of months—but at the end of the day, this is a very tough issue regarding the secrecy of law enforcement. We do not want politics driving the law enforcement agency of the country, but there has to be some tie-in with the Canadian people, and the best way is Parliament. Do you see any tie-in with Parliament, similar to what is done with CSIS, which you would be very familiar with from a previous life?