Thank you very much, Chair.
I'll echo the sentiments of my colleague. I also want to talk a bit about the precedent that we set in committees.
First and foremost, if we've been told 21 days, then I'm not sure why we're not waiting for that time. I say that because we are transitioning with SDTC. They are transitioning to a different model—to the NRC. That will happen in the coming year.
Yes, accountability is important, a hundred per cent. I think I've said multiple times in this committee and in other committees that accountability is very important.
I think that when we're working within the timelines and constraints of not just the House, but also departments, etc., if we've been told it's 21 days, then we should wait for those 21 days before we go into the production of documents.
That leads me to my next point, which I alluded to earlier, with respect to setting a precedent.
I have been in this position for nine years now. Over this past year and couple of months, I've noticed that we are calling more and more for the production of documents, without giving time to the agencies and departments we're asking for the documents to do their due diligence in producing them.
It's creating a strain on our House resources. It creates a strain on translation and interpretation to make sure that those documents fulfill the timelines of the motions that we are passing left, right and centre in all of the committees and in the House, etc.
It's a really bad precedent to set, I think, when we don't allow witnesses, experts and departments the time to actually produce the documents that they have said they're more than willing to provide within the timeline that they're offering.
For me, I think a 21-day timeline is quite reasonable. Pushing towards doing it sooner—doing it right now—is a really bad precedent for us to set. Quite frankly, it's disrespectful to House staff, to the people who support us on committees, and also to departments that have made commitments to provide...and have been actually quite forthcoming as we go deeper into this study on SDTC and its transition to the NRC.
I think that allotting them 21 days is the most practical way to go forward on this. If we're not willing to be even that forthcoming, where it's literally three weeks, then I think there's something completely dysfunctional with how we're operating here as parliamentarians on this multipartisan committee, where we've all made a commitment to put our partisan politics aside and come together to hold people accountable for how government dollars are spent.
I take the point and the value of what my colleague has brought forward. I think it's absolutely important for us to get to the bottom of what's happening here. At the same time, I recognize that there is a path forward over here as well. There is a transition to be made. There is not an urgency or a deadline to be pushing forward any document production order. When a department or agency counsel tells us that they will produce a document within a certain number of days, it is only respectful for us to respect the timeline they asked for. If we're not waiting for them and allowing them that timeline, I think we are doing a disservice to our public service.
Absolutely, accountability is why we are here. Accountability is why we sit on this committee for hours and hours on end and why we are diving into this study. That doesn't mean we put a rush on.... What is the purpose? Absolutely, we are transitioning from SDTC to the NRC. There is work happening. Canadians have the right, a hundred per cent, to know what happened that brought us to this point. However, if there is a timeline, we should respect it before we push for the production of documents, which puts further strain on our House resources and departments.
I think waiting the 21 days is the best way forward. I am more than happy to revisit this motion after those 21 days have passed. It would be very disrespectful to our House staff, who support us on a daily basis, to move on this beforehand.
I'll park my comments there, Chair, but I would like to be put back on the bottom of the list again.