With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I have to say that on Monday evening I had the chance to speak with the law clerks long enough to prepare my motion. I spoke with them Tuesday, and I have just spoken with them again. I have to tell you that what they told me was very enlightening indeed.
There are a number of options. I will not get into them all. That is why I think it is crucial that Mr. Walsh appear before the committee to explain all of them, rather than simply sending us a report. Today, we could ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to carry out the order of finding Mr. Soudas and arresting him. So there are a number of avenues we could explore. That is why I think we should hear from this expert, Mr. Walsh, so he can explain them to us. It is not speculation, in fact quite the opposite; it is the law. I do not think the committee can afford not to hear his testimony. It is absolutely imperative that Mr. Walsh explain those options to us.
After reviewing them for so long, I am familiar with all the procedures and all the various options available to us to carry out our.... There are two sides to this. There is the parliamentary side, and right now, there is more than just that aspect: they are defying the law. So there is the criminal side. We have these two sides, and they are interrelated.
I put forward my motion after meeting with the law clerks and working with the committee clerk, to ensure that both sides—legal and parliamentary—are perfectly compatible, as well as fair and accurate. I know exactly the kind of motion I moved, and I know exactly the consequences of failing to comply with that motion and the summons to appear received by Mr. Soudas.
That is why I am asking the committee to hear from Mr. Walsh: so he can explain the exact legal implications of this situation and obviously the parliamentary ones.