Sir, first, by way of the premise of your question, I cannot guarantee to this committee that an investigation by the Information Commissioner will get to the truth. Mr. Walsh has avoided defining what the truth was in his comment, so I'll avoid commenting on that, but that's not the purpose of our investigation. The purpose of our investigation is to review the application of exemptions on a particular document, to review the rationale that was used in arriving at that conclusion, and in agreeing or disagreeing with that conclusion, and with the express intent of making sure that the requester gets what he is entitled to under the law.
As for the witnesses before the committee, that process is entirely outside my scope either to comment on or review, for that matter. It may well be that through the process of our investigation, its outcome, and if the document is made public by the department, if the document is made public by the requester, that people can draw conclusions on the status of the reputation of the witnesses, if you want, but I will certainly not go there.
The only thing I can do, as we did on page 54 of the annual report, is report a summary of the case...in the Maher Arar case, where our intervention calls for a lot more information to be released. We don't need to revisit that case, but my predecessor feels very strongly that were it not for access to information, Mr. Arar would not be where he is today.