Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses and your legal counsel for coming today.
I have some questions for you, Mr. Togneri, but I do have a bit of a preamble that I hope will not be interfered with. This is a key theme that has occurred today.
I'm a little disappointed, if I could speak frankly, because I had a thoughtful conversation with the chair yesterday. And since we're introducing conversations, it seems relevant to say that I took away a great appreciation of some of the finer points of participating in committee with him, only to come here today to find out, with some great disappointment, that we seem to be in the business of trampling on more than a century of parliamentary custom and in fact laws--custom is related.
We've seen an introduction of a conflict of laws, and it has been brought in a rather curious way: with a telephone call. We don't know whether the chair requested this conversation or whether the commissioner requested it. We also don't know whether the commissioner was aware that this conversation might in fact pose serious, substantive concerns, at least from my perspective. In that regard, I will put it out there that I am a lawyer and have thought through all different kinds of scenarios with respect to this fact pattern and whether the commissioner's response to an order by her office would seriously compromise that document and your ability to give thoughtful and effective testimony today to guide this committee in its work.
I'm confused, because I thought the chair was in a position to provide guidance in a non-partisan kind of way, and I, in my own observation, saw enthusiastic partisanship that I think has really put this investigation of the office of this particular commissioner in serious jeopardy.
That said, I have no doubt that you have found yourself in a situation today where you may indeed feel uncomfortable having given any testimony dealing with an ongoing investigation. A simple yes or no: do you feel that way?