Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to go back to the question I asked earlier.
You said two things between the time when I asked you a question and when you responded to a committee member. You said—I will repeat what you said in my own words—that according to your structure, when you have well-documented evidence and the public interest is at stake, discretion is required in the interest of the public. You said that these were notions that we could find on the website explaining how you operate.
I'm very pleased with this attitude. Naturally, I'm speaking from the federal perspective. I know that you consider what we call public interest. You had in your hands—I am not necessarily asking you to answer, I do not want you to compromise yourself, I simply want to understand—Justice Gomery's inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, which lasted quite a long time and which contains well-documented evidence. He took on an enormous task. His conclusions regarding certain situations led to regular charges of fraud, which is the most frequent case we see in our courts.
I am very pleased that the position of Director of Public Prosecutions has been created. I am pleased because it embodies a notion of non-interference. In my opinion, it is fantastic that we can shield the prosecutor from any perception of political interference. Beforehand, you had all of that. The position of Director of Public Prosecutions is, however, quite new. Another structure had been in place, but I dare not discuss it because I am not adequately familiar with it. But I do know this one. Will the new director appointed to this position feel obliged, for example, when examining the conclusions of the inquiry conducted by Justice Gomery, who is an experienced judge, to institute legal proceedings because the public expects you to administer justice properly and you do not want the perception of justice to be brought into disrepute? Could the director do that? If you are uncomfortable answering this question, don't answer.