Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My memory's a little vague back then, but I think it was either 1642 or 1644 that King Charles I went into the House of Commons and arrested the Speaker, and the monarchy has been denied the right to get back into this place ever since. That is why that protocol has been observed; the Queen and her representative have never yet set foot in the House of Commons--in England, here, or elsewhere--since 1642, because of the fact that we are beyond the reach of the Crown.
We went through this with the sponsorship investigation and the Bill of Rights of 1689, and how we are beyond the reach of the courts and beyond the reach of everybody in this land, provided we are doing our parliamentary business.
There's a separation between us and the Crown. I would say it's a serious affront, if not a breach of the unwritten constitution, to think that we could bring the Queen's representative--albeit former--in here and ask her to account for her function while she was the Queen's representative. Therefore, I'm very strongly opposed to bringing in the former Lieutenant Governor.
Just to finish up, Mr. Chairman, I believe the government has announced that it is very concerned and committed to accountability, and that is why the government has asked the Auditor General to do this audit. It will be asking the RCMP to follow up on the report and determine if any illegal acts have been committed. They're working with the Government of Quebec to see how the question of reimbursement could be addressed.
I think the matter's being addressed in another forum, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, that is why I think we should leave it at this point in time--because of the constitutional aspects of the Queen's representative and the House of Commons that go back 350 years.