Thanks, Chair.
I don't know that we have need of a great debate. It cannot come as a surprise to her, given the attention this issue has had in the media over the last few months, that there are questions that parliamentarians would like answered here on the Hill. This does look, at first blush, like someone who is deliberately dodging and avoiding being contacted. I can't say that 100%, because I don't know, but it certainly looks like that given the circumstances and given the importance to us to ensure that whistle-blowers know they are going to be protected from whistle-blower protectors, which is sort of the “spy versus spy versus spy” aspect of this thing. I think it is quite legitimate that we would insist that she appear and answer the questions to the best of her ability, given the important public interest and, I would say, importance of the issue. If somebody can give a good reason why we shouldn't take this step, as dramatic as it is, I'm listening, but it seems to me to be pretty straightforward.
You are right, Chair. You went the extra mile, if you will, to try to be reasonable and provide an easy way for her to attend without having to go to the heavy, legal hammer of a summons, but I'm not sure, at this point, that we really have any alternative but to take that step. Hopefully she'll comply with that, and we can all get back on track.
Thanks, Chair.