Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I think we quickly came to a decision during the break.
I salute my colleague Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné for expressing her thoughts on this subject. I know that she wants to find a compromise that will allow us to respect the witnesses. It is a huge step to go directly to this stage, that is to say the summons to appear. I think it was the clerk who taught us that technical term. I'd like the clerk to comment on that.
What I've been told is that, in other circumstances, as soon as an individual receives a request like that—I believe that the request is made by letter, like a summons to appear—there are legal consequences related to the person's decision on that summons. People seek legal advice themselves in those circumstances, which is reasonable.
Before we get to that, a truly extreme approach, wehave to consider certain things. It seems to me that we're insinuating the witnesses have something to hide. We can't say their names, but we know that some witnesses have already testified before other committees. Therefore, we can't say that they haven't cooperated in the past. They may have very legitimate reasons for hesitating.
In the past, the chair sent a letter that he had drafted. Let's not forget that he represents the committee members. It's not up to the chair to make decisions of this magnitude. I believe that's not the case. If it were a chair from another political party, that would be considered bad faith by opposition members.
The usual practice is that the chairs, whether they're on the government side or the opposition side, always have to check with committee members before proceeding or making such an important decision. In that sense, we did discuss various ways of looking at this motion to add an intermediate step.
We can say that the chair will still point out to potential witnesses that there will be consequences for their actions, similar to any disciplinary procedure or anything like that. Everything works better when the people in question know the first step and they know that if they don't comply with the request, they will face consequences. It gives people the choice to voluntarily respond to the request.
When I look at the original motion, it's really not clear which witnesses we're talking about. Since the meeting is public, we can't mention any names. However, there seems to be some openness in that regard. Are we going to start calling witnesses left, right, and centre? We don't know.
Again, Mr. Chair, I don't think you would want to do this on your own. On other committees, in the absence of consensus—which is ideal—I know that the chair makes sure that their actions reflect the will and support of the committee members.
The chair told us about three witnesses who were called and didn't appear for reasons that have already been cited. For example, they had gone on a trip or they had nothing to add. I can't remember the third reason, but maybe you could remind me.
At first glance, I get the impression that the witnesses don't realize how important this invitation is. In that sense, I think an intermediate step would be entirely appropriate. I hope that we can work together to find a way to help our chair prepare a letter or move ahead so that he can win the support of everyone around this table. It's important to me that this be clear to the witnesses in question and that the committee continue to work with the chair at every stage.
I understand that there is a concern about timelines.
It's also possible to set a deadline for responding that we consider acceptable for an invitation, but also mention that a summons is possible. However, I don't feel we should be playing that card right now. I see that you agree with what I'm saying, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that.
I'd like the clerk to tell us what the consequences are for an individual—a Canadian—who refuses to comply with a summons like this one.