Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On our side, we would like to ask to suspend the discussion on this motion.
The reason is we would like to validate whether the Sergeant-at-Arms can actually take witnesses into custody. Will he be going out of his jurisdiction to be able to do that, and what are the consequences and impact of that?
We need some time. It's not that we disagree with finding a way to be able to call the witnesses in to come and answer. We're all for transparency and we support it; we just want to make sure that we are doing it right procedurally.
This is the first time we've seen this motion. It would have been good to know that this motion had been prepared. We should have had it before we had the first hour of the meeting so that we could have asked such questions. We probably should have asked and we didn't. So be it. We have the opportunity to do that.
When I read the motion as it's been prepared, there are statements that I want to go back to validate, such as, “The RCMP is investigating contracting links to ArriveCAN and has met with the Auditor General concerning the findings in the ArriveCAN audit.”
I'm not sure whether the RCMP is actually doing an ArriveCAN audit. We've just heard from one of our colleagues that we don't know what the RCMP is doing and we don't know whether it's investigating complaints as they relate to Botler AI or ArriveCAN.
There are statements in here that, if we agree to them, may have an implication, and I'd like to go back to our team to have that conversation. This is not a 10-minute conversation for which I can ask for a suspension. We are not in the same room, so naturally, we need to set it up procedurally for us to get together and have that conversation.
My ask is for a suspension of this conversation. We will pick it up at the next meeting we have, whether on Wednesday or Thursday, and have this conversation, but we really need to get clarification around the jurisdiction of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Is this doable? What kind of precedent does it set? How do they take these witnesses into custody and bring them to the committee?
I'm not sure whether the Sergeant-at-Arms has the right to make an arrest.
I'm probably reading it the wrong way, but this is my suggestion. It is in support of making sure that the motion we are putting to the House and to the Sergeant-at-Arms is the right motion, that it's actionable and legal, and that we understand the implications.