Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Franks, for your interventions. I appreciate the fact that you came here today and I think that it's very useful information.
I don't expect you're going to be able to answer all the questions that are put to you. I don't think that's the role of any witness; if we did find that kind of a witness, our job would be much simpler. If we could find that super-witness who could answer all our questions, we might be able to appoint that person Governor General or something. Until we find that special person, thank you for the interventions you brought us today.
I want to go back to one of the points. You're saying that Parliament is sovereign and can go as far as it likes. In many ways, that's probably true. I am a little concerned, though; this committee is still trying to find its bearing. It's still trying to find out where it should be going next on this. There seems to be a discussion that we could go into a criminal investigative mode at this point, and I'm a little concerned by that. We already have a parallel structure that offers that as an option.
I don't know if this committee should be going forward with that kind of investigation. If it does, and if it came down with a decision or an opinion—and we heard from the minister that there are ongoing investigations—that would mean we would perhaps have a jurisdictional conflict. We would have two separate institutions coming up with two separate conclusions or possible remedies for the same facts. I wonder where that would put us.
Are we sovereign over all other remedies that are possible in this country? Is Parliament above the courts, for instance?