Right. We could have Mr. Walsh come before us. Yes, that's a good point.
The ethics committee, I think in June of last year, was dealing with something more or less similar. They made repeated efforts to get several witnesses before the committee. The clerk of the committee advised the chair that repeated efforts to deliver the subpoena, even if unsuccessful, were to be deemed as delivered. I don't know what the legal status of that is, but subsequently the individuals appeared before the committee. I don't know strong it is in terms of a precedent, but it is a precedent.
The clerk has given me—and she can say it herself—another indication. For example, in some of the discussion last week about what to do next, we indicated—and I think the Hansard will bear this out—that some of the questions we might ask and that we've raised again today would require something more than a bailiff's action. A bailiff's action is typically to deliver a subpoena, not necessarily to go out and find where a person might be.
The committee would have to authorize the expenditure of that kind of action. If it were the committee's decision to have the bailiff ascertain where Madame Ouimet might be, then that's a direction that we, as a committee, could move forward. I didn't feel I had the authority to give that kind of instruction because that comes with an expenditure, so that didn't happen.
Mr. Christopherson, that's another solution that I think you've indicated you might be looking for.