I'd respectfully like to make a response around that.
In my opening comments I spoke about four reviews, and each one of those reviews was not pretty. The findings of those reviews were less than anything anybody, from a constable to a commissioner of the RCMP, would be very proud of in the way those things were dealt with. I also agree with you that at the end of the day, the perception of what we call an arm's-length investigation may be out there in the minds of certain people.
We, in the RCMP and in other police forces across Canada, see a double-edged sword in the amount of trust that people see in the RCMP and other police forces. And often we investigate each other believing that people will trust us to do the right thing because we do live by a very high ethical code. I accept the fact that the perception of that might be very difficult for certain people, but that is the world we live in. We have to be aware of the fact that this trust is both precious and not cemented in stone, that we have to work very hard to move through that.
In the four reviews there were a number of things that were uncovered and shown to be, if not malfeasance, then misfeasance. As I said before, there's nobody in this organization who wants to defend any of what happened in that unfortunate part of time. The work that we've done afterwards, I believe, has been transparent. At the end of the day, the organization has done everything it can to give whatever assurances it can, beyond a total naïveté that nobody ever does anything wrong in this world after the first time.
We will work to make sure that this will never happen again. I agree with you that the RCMP does need to live up to a higher standard, and we strive to do that at every stance.