Thanks very much.
I am entirely supportive of the idea that Parliament reigns supreme in demanding documents. I sat on a committee that worked alongside the Parliament in the U.K. to pursue a Canadian company, AIQ, which was a smaller player in the scandal around Cambridge Analytica. As the U.K. was dealing with that fallout, we were dealing with a smaller amount of that fallout. We worked hand in hand to make sure that documents were properly disclosed and witnesses were compelled to testify. We were able to work collaboratively as parliamentary committees pursuing parliamentary investigations.
At the same time, with such significant power, in this particular case I'm at a bit of a loss. One has to use that power responsibly. This is where I would welcome your thoughts. We have a situation of a former law clerk, Rob Walsh, calling this an “abuse” of the House's powers. He says it's an abuse because the purpose of the House's powers is to enable the House to carry on its proceedings.
How do you respond to that? What do you make of that?