Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Elliott, Ms. George told us that you looked into all information before you reinstated her, and actually you quoted text from the court decision regarding the testimony before this House that said that the RCMP had no capacity to pursue the matter of the evidence given under parliamentary privilege.
I understand that you have reinstated Ms. George. But I'm rather concerned that you would reinstate the deputy commissioner of the RCMP when, in your words, you said there was no disciplinary process pending. Well, I beg to differ, because there is a disciplinary process pending. It's going on right here this morning, Mr. Elliott, where we had Ms. George defending herself on her statements. I'm concerned that you reinstated someone of that rank in the RCMP when she was under a disciplinary process of another venue. And I agree it is another venue. Even though it was outside your purview, it was within our purview to have a disciplinary process.
I want to know why you reinstated her when we were still looking into a matter that Chief Superintendent Paulson referred to as perjury. Now, that's a serious allegation. In Parliament, as Ms. George pointed out, we call it contempt of Parliament. But it's the same seriousness of charge.
Given that was hanging over her, why would you reinstate her at that time?