Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I see that sometimes the rules change from one investigation to the next. Indeed, the RCMP followed a different set of rules or procedures when it investigated income trusts and the former finance minister.
I'd like to thank you and your colleagues for coming here today, Commissioner Soucar.
When you testified before the committee, you stated, in response to several questions, that if the RCMP were to learn that a minister was having a relationship with a person with ties to organized crime, then that would warrant informing the Privy Council Office. I realize that you were speaking hypothetically, but you also have to understand that this hypothetical situation was based on allegations and facts that Ms. Couillard herself had confirmed. This hypothetical case was therefore based on the relationship between Ms. Couillard and Mr. Bernier.
You answered that you would have a valid reason for informing the Privy Council Office. Yet, according to Ms. Tremblay and now, according to your own testimony, you apparently did not inform the Privy Council Office. So then, I have to ask myself this question: does this mean that the situation did not present any kind of national security risk? If someone can have such intimate relations over such an extended period of time with biker gangs and with organized crime, I can't help but ask myself that question. People are wondering if perhaps she was mole for the police.
Frankly, that's all I can think, given what we know and given your statement that the RCMP was aware of the fact that Ms. Couillard was known to police and given your response to the hypothetical case presented. Am I wrong here? I would be happy to learn that I'm wrong. I hope that these facts, the testimony you gave when you were here last, the statements and testimony of Privy Council officials—in short, this body of evidence—will not lead us to the conclusion that Ms. Couillard was quite possibly a police mole.