Okay.
In your report and during the tabling of that report, you had two months to conduct this within the limitations of the mandate and within the limitations of time. You did the best you could; however, you made a couple of very categorical statements. When asked whether or not there should be a public inquiry, you said there was “nothing new, or at least nothing new in value” that it would provide. That's actually your quote.
It's interesting, because just a couple of days prior, you referenced Mr. Gauvin and the fact that he'd abdicated his duty of comptrollership and holding departments to account. Just a couple of days before that, and I guess when the final versions of these were written, we found out that it was more than just not fulfilling duties; he was actually quite proactive. In the commissioner's boardroom he tried to put pressure on an officer from the ATIP section who was about to release documents, and he wanted to replace those documents with documents he'd prepared in his office. This is a deputy commissioner.
Just yesterday we heard new allegations. Potentially we'll have to hear from witnesses who will contradict the commissioner's testimony before us here, so how can you have this tremendous comfort in stating that there's nothing new and nothing new in value to be found in a public accountable process and that in fact the preferred course is a secret behind-closed-doors task force?