First of all, let me say, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Lake has repeated what are assertions or allegations, and not proven facts. In fact, there are processes that one hopes will get to the facts, if you like. You've seen it yourselves, as you've had a lot of “he said, she said” and so on.
Mr. Sorenson, as far as I'm concerned, took assertions and allegations and inferences probably found in the document from Staff Sergeant Lewis. Staff Sergeant Lewis was completely up front with everyone, as far as I can tell, in putting his document together and sending it to the relevant people. That's perfectly fine. But they were assertions and allegations in terms of what he believed, and what he believed he saw. Consequently, you need other processes to get to the bottom of the situation.
My concern with Mr. Sorenson, and with so many others in the House of Commons, especially during question period, is that they throw out assertions or allegations as facts, and people don't seem to care what that does to the reputations of the individuals involved, or even, potentially, to the integrity of the institution, whether that institution is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—for which I have the highest regard—or the institution of Parliament itself.
Therefore, if Mr. Sorenson had any reasonable belief that Commissioner Zaccardelli should have reported a crime, it was his obligation to report that to the relevant police, and then to ask that it be investigated. Instead, what he does—