I take Mr. Christopherson's point as well. I know the analyst has that information and that will feed into the witnesses we choose to call at that point.
The first witnesses we need to coordinate would be the acting Clerk, as well as the two members. Typically, the person who moves the motion of privilege would be called—which would be me—but in this case I would suggest Mr. Bernier and Ms. Raitt.
I would note—and I don't know how we would find this out—that there were other MPs as well, according to the Speaker's ruling, who were on the other buses and who were also denied the opportunity to vote. We don't know who they are. Perhaps the government knows. I was under the impression there were other MPs. That is what was in the Speaker's.... I don't know who those people were, but we should at least provide the opportunity for those other members as well, who had their privileges violated. Whether they come forward or not, I guess that's another point. Certainly the parliamentary protective service would be a witness. I suspect that would come after the acting Clerk and after the two individuals, as well as the RCMP.
Those would be the individuals I think would be appropriate. Beyond that, Mr. Christopherson, you may have an opinion because you were here in previous Parliaments. Other witnesses may come through those discussions or through the review of past breaches of privilege, but I think those are the four key individuals. In terms of the Clerk, I don't know if it would be normal to have the Speaker of the House accompany the Clerk, or if it's simply the Clerk. I don't know. I would look to the guidance of....