Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses this evening.
Let's go to the core issue—pun intended—and the core issue is whether the ombudsperson will have the ability to compel witnesses and documents.
The position of MAC, PDAC and others seems to be that if those powers are not available, somehow or another the investigation will be improved, that the ombudsperson conducting any investigation will somehow or another have a more useful and a more able investigation without these powers. It seems to me that's a logical contradiction. It's also an experiential contradiction, because no court process is effective and no quasi court process is effective unless there lurks in the background the ability to compel documents and compel witnesses to co-operate. It's a little like posting a speed sign on Highway 401 and having no ability to enforce the speed limit.
I'll start with Mr. Gratton, because he and I have been at this for quite a while.
Why is it, therefore, that PDAC and MAC somehow or another believe that the CORE will be more effective in her investigations without these powers than with these powers?