Let me take you through the process.
When the investigation was over, as Mr. Brown said, the only viable option was an internal investigation. That internal investigation took place. Unfortunately--and I agree entirely with Mr. Brown on this point--there was a lack of vigilance on the part of the force. They let the limitation period lapse. These were internal management issues. The internal investigation would have led to serious disciplinary actions being taken but for the fact that the limitation period had lapsed due to a reinterpretation of the period by the Federal Court of Canada.
So please don't suggest that things weren't being done in an appropriate way that was respectful of the rule of law and due process. In fact, all of you are still part of the process, in the sense that the internal investigation, because of the limitation period, was not what it was thought to be. On the legal advice of the Department of Justice and others, the Federal Court disagreed with that advice. Disciplinary action couldn't be proceeded with under the code of conduct. Public accounts had the Auditor General's report. You took up your work and discharged that responsibly. The Auditor General discharged her responsibility. Mr. Day, the minister, discharged his responsibility by asking Mr. Brown to do what he did. This is a process that everybody is involved in here to try to get to the bottom of what happened.
I respect Mr. Christopherson. He may believe a public inquiry is the only way to get to the bottom of this at this point, but it's all part of the process that had to be followed. Whether people like it or not, the code of conduct—and Mr. Brown makes this point over and over again—is at the heart of the disciplinary process and culture of the RCMP. I think he raises a good question: should it be in the same way for the future? My guess is that the task force led by him will offer us some advice on that. We're all moving forward.