Thank you, Chair.
I would like to return to the issue at hand. We are not questioning the powers of the House. The question is not about what parliamentarians can or cannot do. It is about what they should or shouldn't do.
I would like to go back to the letter and go back to the concerns shared by the RCMP.
The RCMP warns there are risks and implications of documents produced by the House motion in a potential criminal investigation. They warn that these materials will need to be set aside from an investigation and that there is significant risk that the House motion could be interpreted as circumvention of normal investigative processes and charter protections.
This should bring pause to all of us here. The RCMP and the Auditor General are warning parliamentarians—and I'm looking at the Conservatives here—of the risks and implications of a House order like this one. By clearly implying that there is criminality, the legislative branch led by Conservative manoeuvres is looking to direct or to influence the RCMP to investigate and to lay charges, infringing on operational and police independence. That is concerning in a democratic society.
Don't get me wrong. Our fact-finding work as parliamentarians is important, but when our work starts to enter law enforcement, institutions and parliamentary officers with the risk of jeopardizing the very values and trusts underpinning these institutions, then we have a big problem on our hands.
Besides the RCMP, the Auditor General has also raised concerns.
Commissioner, how many times have you sounded the alarm on parliamentary manoeuvres compromising your independence? Is this a normal occurrence since you took on the role?