Yes. I think we should leave the summons in the motion. I do not support the amendment, and here's why. The actors involved in this national security breach of the Winnipeg lab do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. When we examined this matter in the last Parliament, we did so in good faith as a committee. At every step along the way, the individuals involved in this matter obstructed, obfuscated and delayed the release of these documents we finally got.
Initially, they told us that we could not get the documents because of privacy concerns, which was not true. The Privacy Act exempts judicial proceedings and other proceedings, such as parliamentary committees, from the provisions of the Privacy Act. When that argument didn't work, they then resorted to hiding behind “national security”, which we now know was not a legitimate reason for withholding the documents. They then defied four orders of the House of Commons—including a summons to the bar—for these documents.
I don't support removing the summons from the motion. The motion is worded in a way—I drafted it in a way—that doesn't compel you to use the summons, but it gives you the option to use it if necessary. We need to hear from these witnesses. I don't want to waste more time than this meeting in having another meeting where you are telling us that departmental officials who have been requested to appear have refused to appear. I don't want to have another discussion about that. I'd like us to adopt this portion of the motion as is, so that if a witness says to you that they're not available, then you can actually issue them a summons so that they will appear. It's high time that we get answers on these matters.
I don't support the amendment.