Thank you, Arnold, for that.
What we are trying to do is get information, through the analyst, that helps us determine where the rules lie and where the conventions lie. That is information as to background.
As for this incident, the obvious thing is to try to find out additional facts as to the source of this particular leak. I think the best way of doing that would be to invite as witnesses the minister's chief of staff, Lea MacKenzie, and the minister's senior communications adviser, Joanne Ghiz. I could be wrong. Those may not be the individuals who were there at the time. If I am mistaken, then I would want to adjust the names, but they could provide us with information. They could confirm to us that they themselves were not the source of it, that it was done deliberately—assuming that to be the case. In addition, they could indicate how large the circle is as to individuals who had access to the documentation at that point.
At some point, either someone was careless and it slipped out, which is highly unlikely—I say that because we would have more than this select slice of information, were that the case—or someone deliberately leaked some of the information, which I think is the only plausible hypothesis. At any rate, those two could provide information.
I would be happy to have the minister herself here. I understand that we can't force the minister to come and also, in all fairness, I suppose the minister is presumably designing the policy, as opposed to designing the communications strategy. The minister is not a communications expert, but I would move that we have those two come as witnesses.