Regarding the second allegation pertaining to her testimony before this committee, I believe Commissioner Elliott is quite correct in pointing out that the court had indicated that testimony could not be used by the RCMP for purposes of any investigation, whether criminal or internal disciplinary investigations. However, with the greatest respect to the witness, I think he's taking that decision further than it ought to be taken. I mean that with reference to Chief Superintendent Paulson's report that there was an inappropriate attempt by Ms. George to cause Staff Sargeant Frizzell to be removed.
I'm making an assumption here, Mr. Chairman, that it would be inappropriate to try to get an investigating officer removed for other reasons. That, I would have thought, was a legitimate point of inquiry by the RCMP regarding the internal conduct of both Ms. George and any other officer who might have interfered with an investigation, whether or not it was discussed before this committee. They can't use the testimony before this committee for purposes of laying any proceedings, but they could still—as I believe Chief Superintendent Paulson did in his report—investigate into how it was or it seemed to be that Deputy Commissioner George played a role in the removal of Staff Sargeant Frizzell. I'm making an assumption here, and perhaps I shouldn't. However, were she to have done so, it would have been inappropriate for her as a matter of police practice, never mind committee testimony. I think what the court said was that they couldn't use committee testimony.
To the extent that committee testimony touches on points one and three, or one and three are free of that, they can be investigated by the RCMP for internal purposes.
My concern here—and I don't know, Mr. Christopherson, whether I'm responding to your question--