Madam Chair, there are a couple of things. I think we were getting onto the same page in thinking that the committee really should be focused on the report and the substance of the report, which includes the cases that we have examined with respect to the former chief of the defence staff, but also, equally, the way forward with respect to recommendations for cultural change.
It is really the report that is going to speak to the Canadian public, to the Canadian Forces and to the government, so I am really hopeful that colleagues will invest their energy in this report and come forward with recommendations that will help us move the yardsticks.
On the summons, I have made this point before and I am quite prepared to make it again if necessary: It is a precedent that is heavy. A summons really is a last-resort action, and to summon exempt political staff who really aren't accountable to anybody but the person who hires them—the minister or the former minister—would set a precedent that I don't think under these circumstances should be set. It isn't just ministers or ministerial staff from this government who could potentially then fall under that precedent, but previous governments as well. That practice, in my view, should be avoided, except under the most important and most pressing cases. I don't think we have one of those in front of us, so I would encourage colleagues to consider that and to really preserve this option and not quickly resort to it as a precedent.
It really signals, Madam Chair, an unwillingness on the part of the witness in question, or the potential witness, to appear. There is no evidence in front of us that this is the case. In fact, there have been exchanges of information between Mr. Marques and the clerk's office, none of which indicates an unwillingness to appear.
I really urge my colleagues to consider the proposed amendment to change the word “summon” to the word “invite”.
Thank you, Madam Chair.