As to the timing of my letter, it was from before the original motion had been amended. I think it's important for the time frames to know that.
I believe including my office in that motion was unnecessary since inserting the law clerk didn't seem to be needed in order to see my office comply with a request from Parliament. We have always co-operated very swiftly with Parliament, and I already had established mechanisms in place to ensure that the RCMP could access any information that they believed was necessary in the course of an investigation they might undertake.
When it comes to my independence and the long-term impacts that I think this might have on audits, I think Parliament believes that my audit files should be protected, and they signalled that by shielding them, in the Auditor General Act, from access to information and privacy requests. This was done in the context of the Federal Accountability Act. It was important for the information we gather to be protected in some fashion. It was also done to ensure that public servants, or any other individual who wished to talk to us, could provide us with free and timely access to information.
My concern about being included in this motion was that it might hinder my ability to gain timely access to information going forward or hinder the freedom that public servants feel now. When they talk to us, what they say should remain confidential and appear in our report in the best way possible to help Parliament hold the government to account.
I was concerned about that. I was also concerned about the time and cost it might take to respond to such a request. It was unclear to me at the time whether my entire file needed to be translated to meet this motion, so there were many things causing some concern. However, as soon as the motion passed in the House, we communicated that day with the law clerk, and we're working through how to ensure that we continue to support Parliament, as we always have.