Thank you, Chair.

In terms of the proposed amendment, I think it's important to be clear about the process. We're proposing that the committee order Mr. Doan to appear, and it seems that there's agreement on that in principle, which is great. The question is, what if he doesn't appear?

I think if we have a clear consequence in there, which is that we would report on the matter to the House, that increases the chances that Mr. Doan will appear. If we don't have part (b), the chances that the committee could get simply blown off are much higher. With part (b) in there, I think almost certainly he will appear, because we've already established that there is a path for a consequence.

I don't think it's very likely that consequence will be triggered, because with (b) in there, it's a clear message that he needs to appear. If (b) is out of there, then it's ambiguous as to whether there would be any kind of follow-up next step.

Let's also be clear in terms of the nature of that process that would follow.

It's always up to the majority, right? The reason Mr. Firth appeared before the bar was because the majority—in fact, as the case was, it was unanimous in the House—agreed to a motion to bring him before the bar. The outcomes are always going to be controlled by the majority. It's not up to us as one party to determine what the next step is. However, I think (b) is valuable because it establishes what happens if Mr. Doan doesn't appear, and establishing that means he's much more likely to appear.

If we pass this motion without part (b), I think the chances are higher that he simply doesn't appear, and then we're back here all over again, so, on that basis, we would suggest leaving (b) in and that the amendment not be supported.

Thanks.

Garnett Genuis

$591,290.00