That's okay.
My only response is that I think part of understanding the process is understanding what the minutes reflect in the decision-making process and the discussion that happened around the replacement of Jim Balsillie as the chair with a new chair on fairly short notice. As I said earlier, we've had a lot of conversation around this. Was it 10? Was it less than 10? Was it six? Was it two? We need the minutes, combined with the letter, combined with the other testimony, to get to the bottom of it. Personally, I think we need all three.
With regard to the tabling in the House, as MP Cooper said, just for the record, those documents have not been tabled with the House. They are in the process. Many of them have been redacted, contrary to the House order. There will be issues about that when the House comes back. To say that these documents are available now....
I would love the clerk to call the law clerk and ask for these documents, so that they could share them with the committee. I'm pretty certain I know what the law clerk would say: I don't have those documents, as you asked for, unredacted. He may not even have the documents at all. I do know, in the response from SDTC, that they're still in the process of providing the law clerk with documents. They have not provided the clerk with all of the documents. The PCO gave guidance to redact, contrary to the House order. I suspect that the PCO have redacted their own documents that they've given to the House, which won't tell us what it is that we're looking for. These are unredacted documents that we're looking for here, to ensure that we understand where the truth lies in this sordid tale.