Thank you very much.
I appreciate that intervention. Actually, it's been my experience that it's better to have those two complements together in the same meeting. Otherwise, you have a minister saying that they don't have the information and they have to hear it from the senior official, and sometimes the other way around, so it's good to have them both in order to make sure there's clarity in the answers provided on the day of the meeting.
I do appreciate the subcommittee. That's the basis of the point that I had, which is around the courtesy of working through a work plan so that we don't end up with six concurrent studies all happening at the same time.
I also want to be clear about the demand for documents. Those of you who've been around the table will know that I share the concerns around the delays on the demands for documents. It does, however, require us to be clear in the motions as drafted. If you do not give a deadline, you will not get a response. I think that's a teachable moment for the mover of the motion, who's quite learned. Hopefully, on a move-forward basis, we'll have that.
I do think it's a problem when anybody—ministers, prime ministers, departments, department heads, RCMP, I don't care who it is—flouts the will of this committee. It is a significant problem when it comes to our parliamentary privilege to demand documents.
I support this as is. I certainly look forward to seeing those responsible submit the documents as demanded. It's a demand for documents. That's what we're doing. For all the ADMs and people who might be tuned in and watching this meeting, know that you've been put on notice. If you fail to meet the will of this committee, then you should expect to be called forward for that.
Thank you.
