Thanks, Mr. Chair.
If I may, I have a follow-up.
In your comments, Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers, I think I heard you acknowledge that there could be a strengthening of the priority of access in the development of the master security plan.
Commissioner, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I saw you nodding. Your comments were suggesting that perhaps, had things been looked at differently, we could have, from a planning perspective, avoided the two paths interconnecting. That is my point. If the access for the members on that day had been different than the access the motorcade made, we would have avoided the whole thing. I see you nodding again, Commissioner, and I appreciate that. With the Sergeant-at-Arms agreeing to this, then it would seem to me that maybe we've come a long way here. Before it was, we need to impart the importance of access—and really it's a different approach now. This time, rather than just saying this is important as a stand-alone, if we looked at it as part of the planning, we could say, okay, the priority is the security of our guests. Alongside that we need to deal with the access of the members by asking if there is any point where these might clash or if there is any way we can mitigate the opportunities for that. As you said, Chief, from time to time things will happen. Officers need to step in, and we all respect that. If we plan it ahead of time, we can lessen the opportunity for a situation like that to arise because good planning had gone into it.
I, for one, Mr. Chair, am pleased that this kind of slightly different approach in prioritizing right from the planning perspective may go a long way to avoiding this, recognizing that in policing, things happen. We deal with those as best we can, but planning is the key.
Thanks.