No, I want to discuss this motion.
I certainly agree that this is important to have, because it was very concerning, in Mr. Dion's testimony, that he said he was interfered with in his work as an officer of Parliament. It is up to us as this committee to ensure that the officers of Parliament have all the tools they need. So I certainly support having him come.
I'm a little uncomfortable saying that he has to speak for 30 minutes. I don't know why that's necessary. Also, with the law clerk, traditionally, I've been very wary of putting the law clerk in a position to be on the record of taking a political position. The law clerk tends to advise our committee and sometimes we have brought the law clerk in camera to give us advice. I think the law clerk would be very wary about getting caught out on this, so I think we should hear from Mr. Dion, and then if Mr. Dion's testimony raised other concerns, we would consider bringing in other witnesses.
So, I would say that we don't need 30 minutes for Mr. Dion. I would give him more than 10 minutes because of the complexity. I would ask my colleague to consider maybe 20 minutes. That allows us more time to question. As for the law clerk, I'd be more comfortable if we invited the law clerk to give us advice but not necessarily in this format of public testimony, so that we can hear if the law clerk thinks there's something that we need to look at.