Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mrs. Shanahan, as she always does, puts into sharp focus the issues at stake in front of the committee. A summons is an extraordinary step. If I've understood what Mr. Genuis is exactly getting at, the motion says, “That in relation to its study of the Trudeau Foundation, the committee authorize the chair to summon witnesses on its behalf.”
This is not something I've seen this committee consider before in my experience of sitting on this committee for some time—others will have sat on it for longer. I'm not sure how it's come to this point. I hope that this committee has not been politicized to a point of no return. I think there is enormously beneficial work that we can do as committee members, as I've said many times in the past and as we have shown in our actions and in the questions that we've asked witnesses. It's a committee that, where it's found the opportunity—and there have been many opportunities—it's worked. It's worked in a direction of non-partisanship. It's worked in a direction that's underpinned by collegiality.
But here we have in front of us a motion that even those who have presented it on the opposite side would admit—as push comes to shove—is motivated by politics.
This is the audit committee of Parliament. We are now looking at a motion that is calling on summoning witnesses. Yes, it is true that under the rules of Parliament, committees and their chairs in particular have the ability to do exactly that, but I don't think we have to do that in this case.
First of all, it would set an awful precedent, not just for this committee, but for other committees. I remember only one particular instance where it reached—I used the phrase earlier, Mr. Chair—a point of no return. That was a few years ago, when we had a long-standing public servant who was brought before Parliament—still unnecessarily, in my view. It really poisoned the debate around what happens at committees. This is not something that we should see happen again. I think there are other ways to communicate the desire of the committee.
I understand, Mr. Chair, that you've attempted to do that. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're the first chair who's asked witnesses to appear and has received a negative response. This is not out of practice. This does happen. We all sit on parliamentary committees. Some of us sit on multiple parliamentary committees. It's an extraordinary privilege to do so. However, Mr. Chair, I point to the fact that where it has happened—I'm talking about a summons—it's deeply unfortunate. Where it does happen that there is a negative response, there are other avenues. There are other avenues to pursue rather than going to the extreme. It would be tantamount to an effort that would see someone who doesn't get their objective to begin with or doesn't reach their goal to start with going to any extreme to achieve what they want. That's not in keeping with the collegial nature of what committees should strive to be. I think we also have to keep that in mind, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps it's the time of year. This is almost my eighth year of serving in this House as a parliamentarian. I know you've served many years yourself. Today is June 1. Without fail, Mr. Chair, the months of May and June are the hardest months. It gets heated in here. We saw that, unfortunately, in question period today. The Speaker, who I think we'll agree is a good Speaker and is someone who's calm, raised his voice in a way I haven't heard before.
