I thought so. I couldn't find it. It also links with the issue of—just cut me off, Chair, when my time comes, as I know you'll do.
It's compelling testimony. Again, you can take an investigation only so far, but if you tell the police—and as a former solicitor general I know a bit about this too—that at the end of the day they can't force and compel, or the courts compel, to get the testimony, how far are you really going to get in an investigation?
We saw evidence, time and time again, of people who refused to be interviewed, refused to give answers, and there was no ability on the part of our officials to compel them to give that testimony.
Again, simple things like receipts to back up requests for tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money seem to me to be something we should fix. If there's an investigation going on, there needs to be the ability to compel testimony. That's something I hope we close off and improve.
I want to mention too that I liked your idea of the interim reports. This can go on awhile. As I said, it's tedious and it can go on for a while. There may be merit, Chair, in looking at breaking it off into chunks that we could then forward to the government, hopefully for their consideration or to put before the House, and then on to the government for their consideration to start putting it into legislation.
I think that's our goal. Rather than wait for the whole thing, all or nothing, let's get what we can in chunks and pieces, get it enacted, and then at the same time keep working here.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to this exercise. I want to end where I began in thanking you sincerely, sir, for all that you've done for Canada. It has made a difference. Thank you.