This is shocking. It really is shocking.
You say there seems to be a blind spot in DFAIT about torture. I'm not sure which of you witnesses jotted that note down, but there seems to be a wilful blindness, perhaps because it seems that we exported torture in the case of Maher Arar, or exported the dirty work to places where we had reason to believe torture may take place. Now that we finally have the floor and now that we finally have you as witnesses to question, my jaw is dropping at what you have to tell us.
On the criminal investigation, my colleagues from the Conservative Party are saying the first witness should be the Information Commissioner. We had the Information Commissioner here, speaking about this very issue, and the deputy commissioner answered a question from me about what the offence is in regard to denying the existence of a document. He said it's a criminal offence. He didn't cite section 67.1, but we did have him here to ask him about that.
It's your testimony that you believe there should be a criminal investigation, and you referenced that perhaps this is an appropriate task for the new Director of Public Prosecutions, whose office was just created by the new government in their Federal Accountability Act. Can you expand on how you might see that unfolding and how we initiate a request for such a prosecution by the new Director of Public Prosecutions?