Perhaps I could help to square the circle, Chair. In the Speaker's ruling, he made reference to different proposals that he's made to the parliamentary protective service. He said:
...some months ago I asked the director of the Parliamentary Protective Service, as one of his annual objectives, to provide mandatory training on an ongoing basis for all members of the service on the privileges, rights, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons....
He has stated some of the role that he has in this. Perhaps, instead of having him appear as one of the first witnesses, it would be more appropriate to have him at some point after we've heard the primary witnesses, to seek from him an update on how some of the objectives he stated are going, and to perhaps as well to seek his guidance on some of the suggestions he would have going forward on how to make recommendations back to the House, and what changes he would like to see from his authority going forward. That is perhaps not to link him initially with the acting Clerk, so that we don't get him bogged down with the current prima facie finding, but rather that we have him attend at a future date, after we have had the initial witnesses, as we go forward.