I understand what you're saying. But as opposed to going out and publicly revealing the person's name and maybe briefing a committee of elected people in a confidential way.... I don't know, I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it seems to me we have a problem here, because we don't know what the problem really is and how to fix it if there is one.
I'd like to come back to this public interest test. I know you're not legislators, but it seems to me there could be a conflict between the public interest test--and how you define that is another thing--and the criteria that you don't want to be exposed to adverse consequences on the integrity of the program. It seems to me there could be a situation where the program is not working as well as it could and this might not be in the RCMP's interest. The RCMP might want to deal with that internally. And I'm sure that you're all upstanding people and good managers and you'll fix things if there's a problem, but if there's a public interest test that says that maybe it is people who are elected who are perhaps, without any disrespect, a better judge of what's in the public interest and better able to make the trade-off between any adverse consequences.... In other words, if the program is being criticized, maybe it's a good thing from the point of view of the public interest to deal with that in a fulsome way.