Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As members are aware, paragraph (n) of the order adopted on April 11 states the following:
(n) in addition to receiving evidence, the committees enumerated in paragraphs (l) and (m) of this order, while meeting by videoconference or teleconference, may also consider motions requesting or scheduling specific witnesses, and these motions shall be decided by way of a recorded vote;
In addition, the motion agreed to on April 20 further extends this order in subparagraph (f)(iii), which includes the following:
(f) for greater certainty, the following provisions remain in effect:
...(iii) paragraphs (k) to (n) and (p) to (t) of the order adopted on Saturday, April 11, 2020....
As the the order states clearly that this committee may consider motions requesting or scheduling specific witnesses, a motion to summon a witness is therefore admissible, as it is a logical extension of the parameters outlined in paragraph (n) of the order adopted on April 11 and in subparagraph (f)(iii) of the order adopted on April 20.
However, I would also like to bring the committee's attention to the following passages from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. On page 981, it states that, “The Standing Orders place no explicit limitation on this power. In theory, it applies to any person on Canadian soil.” It goes on to say, a few lines later, “In practice, certain limitations are recognized on the power to order individuals to appear. Because committee powers do not extend outside Canadian territory, a committee cannot summon a person who is in another country.”
Thank you.