If we don't resolve this, then clearly we're going to adopt this document, or something very close to it, and then we'll invite a deputy in here; the deputy will come in and follow the PCO rules, and we'll be asking questions based on our protocol, and then we'll be at loggerheads.
So first, is that going to happen? Second, in any attempt to avoid this, we need to kick it out of the staff arena and get it totally into the political arena. That's why I would support it, notwithstanding that I think you're right, Chair, that it may not get us anywhere and we might lose a bit of time. But if we get into a constitutional gridlock here at the end of the table, it's going to be pretty big.
The first thing the rest of the House will want to know is what procedures we followed. Did we make every effort to try to come to a resolution, particularly in a minority government? We need to have solid answers to that. This would provide us with that. At no point have you, on our behalf, talked to the political people, who would be the ministers in this case.
Secondly, I would just feel more comfortable, if we're going to start getting into any kind of situation like this, let's do it between politicians and politicians, not politicians and staff. That's always problematic.
So that's another good reason for sending the letter. It kicks it out of the staff level and puts it into the political arena. Then we can deal with it in a political way--nice-nice at first, and then if we don't get the cooperation we need, believe me, it's going to be hard-ass all the way.
