Thanks, Chair.
I would accept that if we'd had agreement or a positive response to the request from our witnesses. However, they made it very clear that it's, “We'll see,” not, “We will provide.” The motion we passed a couple of years ago requiring departments to provide documents or responses within 21 days had a positive response. It's not, “Get back to us in 21 days whether you bother to respond, or whether you will acquiesce to what the committee asked for.” The committee asked several times for these documents and the answer was, “We'll see.” It wasn't, “Yes, we'll get back to you.” It was, “We'll see. We'll consider it.” One of the members very clearly indicated to the other member, “No, no.” There was no, “We will provide it.”
It's pointless if they say, “We'll get back,” and we wait 21 days, when the witnesses made it clear they have no intention of giving it to us. “We will see,” is not, “Yes, we'll provide the documents.” That is why my colleague from the Bloc put forward this motion. It's very clear. The witnesses stated repeatedly that there was a high bar for terminating an order in council, “good behaviour” appointment. Very clearly, these people—several of them—violated the rules of conduct. It's very clear, as well, that they all submitted their resignations after the Auditor General made her views clear on this whole scandal.
I think it's a very reasonable request that the PCO provide us with resignation letters, perfectly redacted for privacy reasons. It has to come as an order from this committee, because the witnesses made it very clear. They did not say yes. They did not say, “Oh, of course we'll provide it.” They said, “We will see.” I understand what both Ms. Khalid and Mr. Drouin are saying. However, it's very clear the witnesses did not agree to provide us with those documents. That is why we have a very straightforward request to make an order for the production of the documents.
Thank you, sir.