Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank Mr. Dufresne for being here.
I want to go back to the 2010 precedent. You have been clear that it was different. At that time it was a committee order, versus a House order, but I was here at that time and, as Mr. Angus said, it was a very serious situation. Anybody watching that video....
I'd like to refer to Ms. Lattanzio. When those witnesses, those staffers, were brought to committee, they weren't just asked to be there for one day to fill in information that the opposition didn't have. They were actually berated. It was almost to a point of character assassination.
When she talks about political reasons, Mr. Chair, I would say that the Liberals seem to have a standard now that is different from the standard they had when they were in opposition. I would like to quote Mr. Easter, who was there at the time. He said:
If we want to invite the minister to come before the committee, then we will do so, and we'll expect him to be here. When we invite other people to come before the committee, as is our right, we expect them to be here and not to be shut out from coming by an edict from the Prime Minister's Office.
To quote Ms. Lattanzio—and I actually agree—she referred to questions not being relevant. We are asking relevant questions and we need those answers to fully complete our report.
Mr. Dufresne, would you clarify? Am I clear in understanding your explanation to us to mean that the committee order in 2010 is different from a House order this year?