That's where I'm going, because I'm saying that just in this current evacuation they're very clearly stating that they talked to the chief of staff. In the previous evacuation, we don't know, because we don't have George Young here to explain to us. That's, Chair, where it's connected. That's why it's so important to bring in George Young.
During the testimony we just heard about what happened in Afghanistan, we were told—this is a quote—he would be “putting it into the system.” That was the email. The question is, what system was that? The only person who will know what that system was will be George Young, because he was the chief of staff to the minister responsible.
From the emails, we can tell that many things were being routed directly through the chief of staff. Major-General Prévost just said that troops on the ground were using a list provided by IRCC. Then, the question we have to ask the chief of staff becomes, “Is that the system that's being referred to in the emails?” That's the only person who will know exactly what the system was.
I'll also add just as a final point that this is a department I used to work for as an exempt staffer. It would be highly irregular, almost impossible.... I cannot believe that facilitation letters would be sent by the chief of staff in an email to a senator to tell them to “try it”. I cannot believe that something like that would be done. I was an exempt staffer there. There is no way that something like that would have been okayed, but of course, if the minister wasn't reading his emails, he wouldn't know either.
I support the motion. We should proceed to have Mr. George Young present to this committee.