I know you have all dug in on this and I absolutely respect the work you have done.
Compelling evidence, compelling witnesses and being able to cross-examine victims are things that concern me, especially because this commission is not out to prove that bad things happened in sport. We are starting from the position that bad things happened and that we believe survivors, we believe victims and we want to make the system better. We didn't want to put athletes, and victims in particular, in the compromised position of being compelled to testify.
Then, of course, there's the very practical reality that when you have a public inquiry in an area that is mostly in provincial jurisdiction, you have to negotiate the terms of reference with the provinces and territories, which could add another year to the process. I can't guarantee that every province and territory would agree, and where would that leave us?
I landed on the truth and reconciliation model because it served a vulnerable population that was previously traumatized in a system that did not protect them. It was forward-looking. It was expressly not a public inquiry and it did not compel evidence and witnesses, so it felt to me, and to us as a government, that this was the best way forward to achieve the outcome we want, which is better, safer sport.