Evidence of meeting #56 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
David, we can have our cake and eat it too. I propose that we sit for three hours, from 11 to two on Tuesday, to get through this report and the first two sets of witnesses.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I think the only indulgence I would ask of the committee is that we recognize some flexibility for Mr. Bernier and Ms. Raitt, who obviously have a schedule that is fairly rigid, given their cross-country tours.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If they're on the Hill today, we have an hour left in this meeting.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Your guess is as good as mine as to where they are. That might be a little quick, Mr. Graham, to do that, but if we seek their guidance, I suspect we could find a day, if the committee is willing to do that.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
The proposal would be for a three-hour meeting, with the first hour for the researcher's report, the second hour for the three witnesses, and the third hour for the Clerk.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
The clerk is suggesting, and I think this has come up in the past, that because the Speaker made the prima facie ruling and has studied it, it may not be appropriate to have him in again, because he's already involved in the project. I think that was recommended once to a Speaker before, wasn't it, that he had ruled on something?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
We're not asking for the Speaker; we're asking for the Clerk.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Yes, but Mr. Nater and Mr. Christopherson were suggesting the Speaker as well.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
The other element of it is that the Speaker—under the new reporting mechanism for the parliamentary protective service—has oversight over that service as well. He has that alternate role to which he made reference in his ruling, so there is that element as well. Beyond his finding of a prima facie case of privilege, he also has the administrative authority as the head of the House of Commons with the oversight of the parliamentary protective service. There is that double element there, so he might have an appropriate mechanism as well.
To that end perhaps—and I don't know how we would go about requesting the studies that he referenced in his ruling—those studies would be very much pertinent to the case at hand as well.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's an interesting point, but I do agree with Mr. Nater. There's a duality here, and we're at the stage where we're just trying to inform ourselves of all the information.
He would have no knowledge, first-hand, of what happened on the grounds, but he would be the resource for answers to questions about who makes this decision, who would do this. Just by way of being factual, it seems to me that he's such a key component of the security services that to not have.... We may never ask him a question. He may not be needed, but I could easily see questions coming up where you must have somebody who is in that position, not to talk about the instant case—I get that, and that makes all the sense in the world—but in terms of setting the stage and understanding and having him here as a resource as opposed to a witness per se, as a witness resource, rather than a witness for the ongoing....
I just think that if we don't have him in here we're going to find ourselves with questions that can't be answered. We'll all be looking at each other and going, “You know who can answer this question? The Speaker.” There's certainly no intention on my part, and I would support you in assiduously protecting the Speaker in this regard so that he's not brought into the instant case.... Certainly, I would think, he can answer structural questions, factual questions, and procedural questions that are generic and not specific to the instant case.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Could I just respond to that?
I think the acting Clerk could do all of that without the necessity for the presence of the Speaker. The Clerk ultimately reports to the Speaker, and the Speaker is the—
11:55 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
He doesn't report to us, though. The Speaker is accountable to us. Let's remember—
11:55 a.m.
NDP
