Another statement you made was that--and it's a quote, once again--there were no signs of cover-up, and that these were inadvertent and not deliberate acts.
I just referenced the situation with Mr. Gauvin. Here's a case; I don't know how else we could describe that. We also have this problematic situation of the very top officials within the RCMP providing us with contradictory statements, diametrically opposed statements. Do you still stand by the statement that these things were inadvertent and not deliberate?