Quite honestly, Chair, I think this is beyond belief. We have had in this committee, and in any other committee I've been involved in over the years, many occasions where witnesses have not been available on a short-term basis. If there was a wilful intent to avoid the committee, then by all means that is the purpose of a summons.
If you take a look at a legal justification of a summons, a summons is intended, obviously, for the purpose of demanding attention when there's been a wilful abeyance of a request. We are really overstepping our bounds here. We've had a number of occasions when witnesses were not available on one or two days' notice. There has to be a sense of reasonable balance in this committee.
I really think this flies in the face of common courtesy, let alone respect for the values and principles that this committee holds true. This committee is not a kangaroo court. It should be a committee to hear people—not at leisure, but where is the balance between mandating that we run almost a Gestapo-like process here or do it in a Canadian way, where there's a little bit of tolerance and respect and courtesy and understanding?
With the greatest respect to my colleagues who are putting forth a motion such as this, I see no reason for it. If we have a wilful predisposition of these witnesses to avoid coming, that's one thing. Then quite frankly, regardless who those witnesses are, I'd say let's summon them, by all means. How many times have we called witnesses, whether ministers or deputies or private people, who have not been able to come on that day? Obviously we would go back to another day or try to have some form of level of convenience whereby we try to work with people.
This is an affront to a willingness to work with everybody. I see nothing to be gained from issuing a summons. To me it's a clear breach of our responsibilities at this time. We have to know the difference between doing what is right and fair and stepping over the bounds. To me, this is totally stepping over the bounds.
If the clerk came to this committee and said, we've contacted these people, but there's obviously an unwillingness to appear at a certain date, and the clerk indicated from the conversation that there was either a demeanour or an attitude, or simply “excusitis”, then that is not an excuse, and I think we then have an obligation to treat it as not being one.
In this case, the clerk has reported that he had given, of course, very short notice—simply a day or two. How many of us can appear automatically sometimes on a one- or two-day notice? It can be difficult.
I think this is a reasonable request, to simply put it off for that week. If at that particular point the clerk contacts these people and they're not available again with a lengthy period of advance notice, then I think we have every reason and every right to put more than expectations, but realistic demands on these people from this committee.
At this particular point, Madam Chair, I almost think you should declare this motion not acceptable, because it flies right in the face of the normal dealings of this committee. I think it's a little too much, at this point, to expect that. I'm rather disappointed in my colleagues that they seem to want to read something into everything.
That's all I have to say at this point.
