Mr. Chair, we see that Mr. Soudas is indeed absent this morning. We have the document you handed out. I want to point out that it is extremely embarrassing for Parliament when a witness who has been duly summoned.... We voted on a motion on this matter on June 8, on Tuesday. And this witness did not appear. He is turning his nose up at all the laws that govern the country. Before preparing this motion, I worked with the House of Commons' law clerks to get a clear understanding of all the various legal avenues available in this situation, which I would describe as quite unique. I also worked with the committee clerk.
Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we hear from Robert Walsh next Tuesday; he is a law clerk who would be able to explain to the committee the exact legal implications when a witness fails to appear before the committee. In fact, he could speak to all the legal aspects involved in such a situation.
I find this situation very peculiar. Mr. Soudas is a member of the Prime Minister's staff. Mr. Harper sent us a letter saying that his employee would not be appearing before the committee. I have the chronology of events here. On May 25, Jay Hill made his statement before the House. On May 31, Christian Paradis, the minister, sent us a letter to say that Mr. Togneri and Ms. Andrews would not be appearing. On June 1, Prime Minister Harper sent us a letter saying that Mr. Soudas would not be appearing. On June 8, I prepared a motion to compel Mr. Soudas to appear given that he had already received a summons to appear. Once again, he did not appear.
As parliamentarians, we are in a very peculiar position here. A prime minister, knowing that a member of his staff has been summoned by law to appear before the committee, is not doing anything. How is it that the Prime Minister, whose government wraps itself in the cloak of law and order, is not encouraging his employee, either directly or indirectly, to comply with the orders of this House of Commons' committee?
That kind of attitude is an obstruction of justice and is subject to sanctions under the Criminal Code. Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, and I quote:
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Therefore Dimitri Soudas and the three witnesses could be found to be in contempt of Parliament. What is more, Mr. Harper, himself, is contravening the law, pursuant to section 139 of the Criminal Code. Given this situation, I think that Robert Walsh, the senior law clerk of the House of Commons, should appear next Tuesday to explain to our colleagues the implications of the wrongdoing committed by Mr. Soudas, Mr. Togneri and Ms. Andrews, as well as their respective employers. Given that these employees received a summons to appear before the committee, encouraging them not to appear constitutes an obstruction of justice under the Criminal Code. I am referring to section 139 of the Criminal Code, which states that this offence is liable to 10 years of imprisonment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.