Okay.
In the report, Mr. Johnston, you concluded that it was reasonable for the Prime Minister to take no action, even though in your own report you cited that there were irregularities and that there was well-founded suspicion.
From my perspective, I don't know how you can square that circle and how you can come to that conclusion when there was well-founded suspicion, and yet no action was taken. The common refrain from the report seems to be that no recommendations were made, so none were taken and none were ignored. Somehow, the notion is to say “I see no evil, I know no evil, so therefore there is no evil”, but in reality, there is much more and it's much deeper than what is going on.
My question, then, is this: Can Mr. Johnston explain if CSIS looked into nomination processes?