So what I'm trying to understand...because this committee saw further contradictions as his testimony went along. In fact members of the public were shocked, I think, as we went along and had contradiction after contradiction. Witness after witness, the testimony simply didn't add up.
We kept pointing it out on the opposition side. In fact when the commissioner then made a statement on the Monday before he appeared at the committee, on the Tuesday in early December, the anger had reached a crescendo, with people being really upset at all of these contradictions.
What you're telling me is that there was not any real interest to question these contradictions, as they were going along, or to make any kind of effort, in a written form or any other way, to understand them.
But moreover, at the very least, was there anybody, as a national security adviser, who counselled Minister Day or the Prime Minister, to say, guys, slow down; don't give 100% support, and stop saying that you support the RCMP commissioner 100%, unconditionally, unqualified...as they said even on the Monday, even after the commissioner had said these things?
So with all of these questions that had been raised, all of these contradictions--you yourself, Mr. Elliott, were surprised by his testimony on the 28th--did you not at least counsel the Prime Minister to slow down, to not give unconditional support?