I concur with the feelings and the sentiments of Mr. Martin, but I also note that this committee spent a great deal of time working on this particular report—10 sessions, 7 sessions with witnesses—so that our recommendations would be well-founded and made on strong, firm foundations. The former commissioner was quite right when he said the response was cavalier. It was cavalier in style, but I also concur that it was carefully thought through and it was dismissive with purpose.
I like Mr. Dechert's suggestion that we need something further in writing. There were 12 specific recommendations, and we spent a great deal of time on every single one of those. We have 11 parliamentarians on this committee, representing all parties from virtually every region of the country. We virtually had consensus on all of these very important points, and to be dismissed out of hand is disturbing and it fundamentally undermines the democracy of our country and its transparency.
We've waited this long, and November 5 is a week from now. I would in fact be encouraged if the minister, if he were to appear, would take Mr. Dechert's suggestion that, prior to that, we be provided with something on paper addressing each of those 12 recommendations and why in each case he has said no. He has said no to this committee 12 times, so why has he said no to each one of those? He may have very good reasons, but we'd like to hear them.
I think the combined suggestions of Mr. Szabo that he appear and the suggestion of Mr. Dechert that he provide us with something on paper would serve this committee well. I'm willing to be patient for another week.