Madam Chair, I have a further question about the process, which I would direct either to you or to the clerk, whoever you think is best suited to provide a response.
I also have a slight preamble.
First of all, what's important to know about the process is that first the committee has to decide that it's actually going to get on with doing up a report. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. I'd like to get there today.
Then we have to determine the content of that report. There's an attempt here by Mr. Nater to begin that discussion, I think maybe somewhat prematurely, but nevertheless, there are some good ideas on the table. Then that gets reported back to the House. Then there's the matter of a concurrence debate. Then there's a vote in Parliament, which could turn a recommendation of the report into an order of the House.
Then there's the question of parliamentary privilege. We know that MPs can't be compelled or don't have to accept invitations to appear and there are certainly lots of examples of that. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister himself is a current example of that.
However, it seems to me that, if you look at chapter 20 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it's an open question as to what happens in the event that an order issued by the House to a member of Parliament to appear is not followed. It seems to me that there are some examples cited from 2008 where, on a couple of occasions, there was this kind of recommendation by a committee to try to get the House to order a witness. In fact, when committees had made that recommendation back to the House, it was not actually dealt with. The House either chose not to deal with it or, in the second case, as referred to in the footnote, Parliament was dissolved before the issue was decided.
I think the further aspect of that, which is relevant, is the timeline that we're on, in terms of the end of June. Again, my frustration is that we're on that timeline really because we have a Prime Minister who seems very likely to call an election in the summer and refuses to say he won't. That means that if we want to be able to report back on some of this, it has to happen by the end of June.
Presumably an order of the House, once it were determined, would then provide some time for the Prime Minister to arrange an appearance. It would only be after he didn't appear that we would then have to settle the issue, which would mean coming back to the House with some other kind of motion in order to devise some kind of sanction against the Prime Minister for not having appeared.
The question is whether all of that can be done before the end of June. If it can't, that means that not only did the Prime Minister not appear, but PROC never even reported back about it. I think that would be egregious. I share the outrage of other members of the committee who are upset that the Prime Minister isn't coming. I do think that shows a lack of leadership. The question is what you do about it. I think what you do about it is report back to the House. As I say, I'm open to that longer road, but I think we need to get there first.
Could the clerk comment on how the issue of privilege could interact with an attempt for the House to order the Prime Minister and what some of those timelines might be if the House wanted to pursue it vigorously?