Maybe I'll add a couple of things, Mr. Chair.

Certainly our recommendation, which was in paragraph 74 of the audit, was about examining the costs of providing the same capacity for response across the parliamentary precinct and the possibility of moving toward a more unified security force.

We didn't talk specifically about how that might be done. Obviously we were leaving that up to the decision makers.

When I read through the bill, I have a couple of concerns myself, not as a security expert but as a lay person, sort of as an administrator trying to look at the bill and see how it would work.

For example, proposed new section 79.51 says the designation of what is to be included in the parliamentary precinct may be made by one Speaker or the other Speaker, so it's not a matter of both having to agree on it. So is there a possibility that one Speaker might think that security services need to be provided somewhere and the other might think that they shouldn't be, and in fact doing that could take resources from one place to another?

In 79.52(2), it says that the Speakers are responsible for the service, but whenever there are two people responsible for something, again that could be, to me—as an administrator and not knowing the details of security or all of the details of the administration—a signal of having two people trying to give direction and that there needs to be a way of making sure that clear direction can be given. It also says they are responsible for the service, but it doesn't really say what exactly “responsible” means.

I'm just making those comments more as an administrator, trying to think of it from the point of view of somebody who would have to implement this from an administrative point of view. There were just a couple of things like those that seemed a little unclear for me, and I wondered where that direction comes from for the director.

Transcript

Discussions (0)