Thank you very much.
I'm going to do something that maybe I don't do often enough, which is to provide the benefit of the doubt to police institutions and to you and the RCMP. It's pretty clear that under these circumstances, there are allegations of political interference. Under other circumstances, there could be the potential—I'm just playing this out as a hypothetical—where there could be allegations of the RCMP initiating investigations on politicians. That could also be considered political interference from the other side, from an oppositional side.
What I want to offer you today is the opportunity to just reflect on the fact that, as you've testified, the Ethics Commissioner had access to more information than you had. I think that's a hard thing—I'll just put it on the record—for Canadians to be able to digest and to look at and for our journalists to be able to digest, the fact that the Ethics Commissioner has more access than the RCMP on this matter. You may or may not recall, but it was our party, the NDP, that called for the federal government to launch a public inquiry. I know there are lots of conversations around the cost of inquiries and the powers. Certainly, we've come off the Rouleau commission with the Emergencies Act, and there are lots of people with opinions on that.
With what you have experienced and with what you have contemplated here today, would you agree that an inquiry that was granted unfettered access, including not just having the kind of constitutional direction from the House, but also having the powers for documents, for evidence and, ultimately, for judicial oversight, would be a good, non-partisan, non-political, unobstructed opportunity for us to deal with these matters of national importance when it comes to piercing the veil of cabinet confidence and the ability to pursue any types of allegations of wrongdoing?
Would a public inquiry have provided the remedy for what seems to have frustrated you in your ability to have a full investigation?
