Thank you very much, Chair.
And thank you all for your comments and for being here today.
Commissioner, I have a hypothetical question, but I'm not going to pretend it's not about the David Brown investigation. It is, but I want to put it in a hypothetical sense, and maybe you'll see why in a moment.
One of the difficulties this committee has--certainly the majority have--with the investigator process rather than a public inquiry is that there is no ability to subpoena anyone, there is no ability to put people under oath, there is no ability to subpoena documents, notwithstanding the fact that it's all being done in the backroom--reports to the minister, not Parliament.
But I wanted to ask you this, purely from an investigative point of view--and there is more investigative talent in this room right now probably than anywhere else in the nation. So my question would be this. If you're doing a simple investigation, usually you need to find out what the two sides have to say and then you sort out, finding out if they disagree, where and why and is somebody lying to you. If only one person volunteers to come in to meet with an investigator of any sort and you ask the other party to come in and give their side of it, and they won't do it, and they won't give you any documents pertaining to the information you want, how does an investigator then give a fulsome report at the end of that process, if they haven't been able to meet with both sides of whatever issue they're investigating? How do you do that, and can you?