I appreciate where we're going. My concern is that one hour would no longer be enough if we were to have the director of PPS as well as the Speaker and the Clerk.
I would almost think we'd need the full two hours to have that discussion, because when we have the director of PPS, we're getting into fairly substantive issues of how we deal with things. I like the direction that this is going, but I suspect that one hour would be awfully tight to have a meaningful dialogue with the multiple actors in that case, because, in addition to the security apparatus and the administrative framework there, we also have the Clerk's input on privilege itself, which would be an issue as well. I would be somewhat concerned about fitting this into one hour, so perhaps we could move that.
If the committee is flexible, we could designate next Tuesday and Thursday, alternating depending on availability, two hours with the Clerk, the director of PPS, and the Speaker on one day. Then the second day, in whatever order, would be for reviewing the past circumstances, as well as the MPs who were affected. I know that logically we should have the past review first, but if we could have some flexibility to do that...or perhaps if there were a three-hour meeting on Tuesday, then we could do that in the first hour, and then in the second hour, whichever witness would fit in would perhaps be an option for the committee.