Yes. My primary problem with OSIC is that it's very reactionary, and I think I speak for many of the scholars involved in our group. Something bad has to happen—first—for OSIC to get involved. What we talked about, in the letter to the Prime Minister, was getting ahead of things and trying to be preventative and shift a culture that is already, as you said, very toxic.
We can't do that by simply reacting to individual cases all the time. We have to react to those cases—we need a reporting mechanism in place—but, at the same time, we need something more robust that can actually shift things in a meaningful way. We could all look at it and be happy about it, and athletes could put their faith in it. Every time you see one of those letters come out on “Fencers for Change” or “Figure Skaters for Change”, it's because a lot of athletes don't have faith in the sport system, right now. They have to take another route. They don't trust the people up the ladder to report these things. If that's the case, OSIC is not going to work.
Perhaps it will take time to get established, but the same argument being made there.... The opponents of an inquiry are saying, “Well, you have to give OSIC time to develop. It needs time.” However, the second we say “inquiry”, they say, “That's going to take too long.” Which one is it? Do we have time to do this? Do we want to get it right? Why are the goalposts different when it comes to an inquiry and OSIC? I would argue it's because there's been a lot of input into OSIC by very influential people who want to defend what they created. I think that's a natural response, but, at the same time, you need to remove yourself from that situation and think about what's best for the whole nation.
I think that's a national inquiry.