Right, so Mr. Fraser's whole line of questioning comes crashing down like a house of cards. He was claiming that somehow the “irrelevant” exclusion was contained in the original motion. It was not, as you've just confirmed, and it was not included in the second motion. Therefore, the government was in no way empowered to black out things it considered to be irrelevant.
There could be all kinds of evidence of corruption related to this scandal that the government considers irrelevant to the public. I mean, let's remember that this is a scandal about the Prime Minister personally intervening to award half a billion dollars to a group that gave his family half a million dollars. It's the kind of corruption that puts politicians behind bars in other countries, but it's the kind of corruption that is apparently accepted in this government, and now we expect the same government that engages in these practices to have the authority to black out information that it doesn't consider relevant to the public. That is not what this committee requested.
Mr. Fraser personally committed to me and to this committee that the only information that would be excluded in the disclosure to you would be on the grounds of cabinet confidence. That is a commitment that he and the government have violated. That will have to be taken into consideration the next time we agree to a compromise with him and with the members of the government. I'm very disappointed to learn that they did not honour the commitment we agreed to when we passed the second motion in November.
Mr. Clerk, in going back to our original discussion about witness appearances, I'm going to again read from the report you gave me:
In order to facilitate the witness's attendance, the Committee presented a report to the House requesting that the Speaker issue a warrant for his appearance. The House subsequently concurred in the report.
In other words, a committee can pass a motion seeking a warrant to physically compel witnesses to appear. If the House then concurs in the issuance of that warrant, the Speaker would then seek law enforcement to carry it out. Is that your understanding, Mr. Dufresne?