But would it not have been appropriate to say that there is a committee studying the issue, we look forward to their recommendations so that we can better understand what's going on, and we reserve judgment until we're able to hear the committee testimony?
I mean, when he said he had 100% support despite all these questions and contradictions, didn't that cause problems?
As another question, I'm trying to understand how, as a national security adviser, you had said that you didn't.... We're talking about an individual Canadian citizen who was deported to Syria and tortured for a year. We had the RCMP Commissioner in front of us giving testimony about this. But you said--and I do understand, as you said, that of course you weren't in the country—that you'd never read the transcripts of that conversation, which is surprising to me.
Further, you said earlier that it wasn't really important to you, or you didn't have an opinion, as to what version of what the RCMP Commissioner said was true.
So was the Prime Minister not asking you about these things? Did he not have concern about these contradictions, about which version of the truth was going on, about what happened in the testimony? Were these things that you weren't counselling him on, or were these things that he didn't really care about asking about?