I'd just say that in two weeks' time since our last meeting.... In that last meeting, members who were not in support of reporting this to the House, based on their comments, said they wanted one more letter to go and that it was about just giving one more chance. That's different from what we've heard today. There's been an evolution. Now it's more meetings, more witnesses, more excuses.
To be crystal clear, that's as predictable as this happening today, after those departments had an additional two weeks to comply with their legal obligation to provide documents to this committee following those meetings, as sure as those two weeks didn't provide enough comfort for members to support the objective fact that departments are refusing to provide documents to a committee simply because they don't believe the committee has the right. However, they're wrong. It's not a debate. There's no question on whether what they're saying is right or wrong. What they're saying is wrong.
We heard it from officials before, and we heard it from a minister here that they were going to see what they could do. The only thing they can do that is compliant with their obligations and with the law is to give us the documents—of course, being mindful of redactions for the protection of personal information or private information. That's been allowed for. This is a refusal. It's a refusal, and it creates a precedent. This is going to be a problem.
I can only guess that the thinking of some members would be that they're going along to get along and that this is going to keep people happy in Langevin Block, in the PMO and PCO. However, what is the effect if we're disregarding the precedent and the law just to say that this is politically inconvenient for the current government, when it's strictly an accountability measure? People talk all the time about being concerned about Canadians' confidence in public institutions. This is the exact opportunity that everyone has to demonstrate that this place works. We asked for information. There's been no judgment made by this committee about the information that was provided except for the absence of information that was ordered and wasn't given to us, that was not in the acceptable form and that was not in both official languages, in spite of the capacity for those documents to be tabled in both official languages.
If you, Mr. Chair, were in receipt of a letter and informed this committee that the departments—all of them—had said that there is one reason they haven't provided this information to us in a fulsome way in both official languages and that it's because of time, that they don't have enough time, I could wholeheartedly support an extension. It would be disappointing, but I could support that. However, you don't have that letter. They haven't sent it because that's not why we don't have the information. It's because they don't believe that this place matters. They don't believe that the powers of Parliament matter.
The way for them to show that was to have respected the obligation they had to table the appropriate documents in the appropriate form with the clerk of this committee.
I've read the analysts' report. Like Ms. Vignola, I did not read every single character that was tabled with this committee. I didn't read it in both French and English. In some cases, that wouldn't be possible because they didn't give it to us in that format. I did read every word of the report that is the subject of the motion on the floor that we're about to vote on. Since my last intervention, I haven't heard anyone take the opportunity to tell me what the analysts got wrong.
I listened for it, but I stepped out for a minute.
I'll just look at my colleagues. Was a response offered to my previous question from any of the other members that information the analysts included in the report was incorrect? Did that happen?