Let me start with your last question: no, it does not. As I said earlier, my role is to be absolutely non-partisan in all my dealings with the Prime Minister and his office, including when the Prime Minister asks us to investigate.
What we did as well in this case was to ask Mr. Tardif to be the centre of this investigation, not me. I'm accountable for the results. I'm accountable for the report. I'm actually very pleased with the rigour of it. But it was a report that was done independently. We engaged a firm with, I think, a great reputation to do it. It was directed by Mr. Tardif. My instructions were that they should go where the investigation took them. So that is the independence of the report.
I'd like to go back to your earlier question about Mr. Brodie and what we say in the report. If you think back to that point in time, I think there was a lot of uncertainty and questioning about what Mr. Brodie may or may not have said. In the conclusions of the report, I think the investigators have brought much greater clarity than was available at the time.
They indicate that although there are differing views, the best evidence we have is that it's probable that Mr. Brodie spoke to the reporter, in the lock-up, on the subject of NAFTA, and that he may have told them that there had been contact between Senator Clinton's campaign and the embassy in Washington. That's not Senator Obama's campaign and what's in the report, and I think that's a substantial difference. I think the work of the investigators has helped clarify that.