Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate the goodwill that's going around to try to get to the bottom of this. I'll just reiterate that the minister has stepped down and GHI is no longer on the list.
This is an important study for us to continue. What I will say is that I have no intention of being part of a Standing Order 106 or a chair's directive to be pulled back to this committee for some kind of faux urgent meeting over the holidays because somebody wants to get in a news cycle. I want to be very clear about that.
I'm not in the room. I know this is a made-for-Netflix miniseries that we've been a part of for the last few months, but I have no intention of revisiting these witnesses as secondary bit players in this drama from now until we return on a regular sitting day.
I would also say that just in terms of the order of operations, just on the face value of it, I would agree—although it doesn't happen often—with Mrs. Shanahan that there doesn't seem to be a need to go ahead and call the skip tracers or the bailiffs or Dog the Bounty Hunter, or whatever the hell you want to call it here, in advance of actually having the summons go out. I do think that's a tad bit dramatic. I know that my friend Mr. Barrett has a flair for dramatics, but I would say that on the face value of the committee work that we have done, a summons would be appropriate.
Should there be a reluctance or a refusal, I want to know through you, Mr. Chair, at what point do we enact this Dog the Bounty Hunter clause, and who decides?