What I'm hearing is that Mr. Johnston is going to shed some light, that we shouldn't worry, that this is why he's here, and so on.
The problem is simple. Before Mr. Johnston tabled his report, experts were opposed to an inquiry, but they're in favour of it now that the report has been submitted.
Does that mean that the attempt to shed light very quickly and at low cost, as Mr. Johnston proposes, is a failure? I have some names here: Daniel Stanton, whom I mentioned earlier, formerly of CSIS, Michael Wernick and Artur Wilczynski. Those people changed their minds after the report was tabled.
Does that ultimately mean we need a report from a commission of inquiry? You haven't convinced people. Since your report was submitted, they've mainly been convinced that an independent public inquiry is really necessary.