Thank you.
I'm going to turn it over to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.
First, I want to say something. It's very valid to discuss the rationale and the mechanisms we have before us. The study itself was passed unanimously. I'm going to corral back to that.
I'm going to make a quick point for some of our members. Of note, Mr. Fragiskatos and I have a unique experience. We were both on a committee that summoned a witness. Ms. Bradford, you are right: It is an exceptionally rare occurrence.
I've had one member ask me about the steps and the difference.... When we invite witnesses, it is the committee's request that they appear. Of course, generally people comply with that. That is something we do as a matter of courtesy, but it's one where we're appealing to people to appear before Parliament and the standing committee. Elevating it to a summons is a demand, and it is a demand that is rarely rejected, because it's akin to a court appearance. It virtually obliges the individual to appear. Now, of course, people can still not appear before that committee, at which point the committee can discuss it, and if it chooses to, elevate it to the House of Commons.
That's what we're debating here. I know that one member was looking for a point of law.
Am I right, Mr. Clerk? Is that a fairly accurate difference between them? An invitation is a “we hope you'll come” and a summons is a “we expect you to come”. Yes, that's accurate.
On that note, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor, please.