Thanks, Chair.
I wanted to speak to this because my understanding is that the original motion we agreed to—and I don't want to read it to members, because I'm sure you all have a copy of it—specifically indicates that this committee would take the testimony of witnesses who have appeared or testified before other committees. It was explicitly part of the conversation we had that Annette Verschuren, who is the former chair of the board at SDTC, had already appeared before the ethics committee. I'm not sure why Ms. Verschuren was actually invited to this committee, given the fact that we said we would take that testimony as our own so as to avoid duplication at this committee.
I would also direct people's attention to the fact that the motion also said, “the committee reserves the right to re-invite said witnesses as necessary”. However, my understanding is that no case has been made before this committee as to why that would be necessary.
I have Ms. Verschuren's testimony here before the ethics committee, which I've reviewed, and it seems quite substantive. I'm abiding by the original conversation and agreement we had in passing that motion. I don't understand why we would need to summons a witness—no one has made a case for why we need to reinvite her to this committee—when we all agreed we'd have her testimony as a part of this study at this committee.
Those are my thoughts. I'm not inclined to support a summons at this time.