Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy, and surprised, to see you here this morning, Mr. Baird.
There are two things that we need to consider. First, the committee had requested to see Mr. Dimitri Soudas and he is a no-show. That fact is irrefutable. His appearance was scheduled on the committee's agenda and, if I may remind you, the committee is the master of its own agenda. I have nothing against Mr. Baird attending this meeting. In fact, he is quite a charming and delightful individual, but he is not the person we were expecting to hear from. Nevertheless, we will listen to what Mr. Baird has to say because you decided that he was a charming and pleasant individual with whom we could exchange views. But the fact of the matter is that we were supposed to meet with Mr. Dimitri Soudas. Some precedents have been set in other committees. When a witness fails to appear—and it's happened here before—we can set in motion steps to compel that witness to appear.
The Government House Leader made a statement in the House. However, in my view, he does not have the authority to amend the rules and laws of Parliament. Parliament is a very important institution, one that must be respected. Often, we see that the rules governing the power of parliamentarians, and in this instance, the power of committees, are skirted. A House leader cannot change the rules that committees have in place governing the summoning of witnesses or decide who shall or shall not appear. Again, it's all well and good to welcome Mr. Baird, as he is a totally charming and pleasant person, but he was not the person we initially invited. Perhaps we could address item A before moving on to item B. For starters, Mr. Soudas isn't here. What do we do then? Before hearing from a surprise witness, we need to decide how we handle the fact that one witness is a no-show. Far be it for me to challenge your authority.