Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just stepping back from this particular case, because this is something where we want to go beyond the facts of this case, what I found when I was looking at the reports of the past and the cases that happened, there was some ambiguity as to where the onus lies with respect to identity. That's really the only question I have.
In the 26th report, there are mixed messages there. One says that the security official should be able to identify the member, that they should have a book. At the same time it says the member should have ID or a pin.
My question is, where does the onus lie with respect to identity? If you have a member.... In that particular case, in fact, there was knowledge that the member was a member, but there was refusal to let that person go because they did not actually have identification on their person.
My question is this: From the security perspective, where does the onus lie with respect to identifying a member? Is it with the security official? If the member has no identity, doesn't have a pin, doesn't have their card but they are in fact a member, and the security official blocks them, who's at fault there? Is it the security official who doesn't have the book and have the pictures memorized, or names and identity, or is it the member of Parliament who does not have ID?