I have no political reason not to want her here. This is someone who was appointed by a previous government of a different stripe. It's not in my home province. So for me, from a political standpoint, it doesn't cause any headaches.
I agree with Ms. Sgro: Why not listen to what the Auditor General has to say, first? Normally we put together a witness list after we hear from the Auditor General in the first place. She comes down with a report, we listen to her, she deposits it here, she sits at the table, and we listen to her contribution. After that's done, we all as a group, through the subcommittee, plan who our witnesses are going to be.
My sense is that there is an attempt here to put forward a big uppercut. We're going to bring in the Lieutenant Governor. We put it before the committee, we're dragging her in, and we're going to teach her a lesson. I don't think that is necessary or appropriate.
I think what we've heard from our legal advisers and from the contributions that Mr. Williams and others have made is that if we were to call a former head of state into this parliamentary committee, it would be a big step. I think even those who are supporting this motion would agree that it is a fairly drastic thing to do. It would seem to violate certain conventions on dividing the executive from the legislative branches, a convention that we weren't willing to breach when it was Adrienne Clarkson, you'll recall. I don't think we need to take a drastic step like that before we've even heard from the Auditor General.
I'm going to support the motion from Mr. Christopherson to have her removed from the list for now. If, for whatever reason, at some point later on, we are convinced that her testimony here is essential, I'll be open to it, but until I've heard from the Auditor General I'm not convinced of the necessity to take such a drastic step as to fuzzy the line between executive and legislative.