I want to be clear on that point. As I understand it, there is no flexibility in terms of what the board can do here. I am sympathetic to the fact that folks have concerns, but I am hearing that there is no flexibility in terms of what we can adopt.
Some of the matters that were being discussed are not even necessarily being changed, for example, the disclosure on designated travellers. It is my understanding that this matter before us is not amending that. I understand that members would have other concerns with it.
The only question is really about the discretion of the Speaker. Maybe I could ask the question more directly and it might clear it up a bit so that folks aren't left with the impression that this discretion is broad. While technically the Speaker could rule that there was an infringement of privilege or security, that ruling would still need to respect that any Speaker who was occupying the chair would be burdened with a need to respect the spirit of the act.
As I understand the spirit of the act, it is disclosure, and if there is a security concern, it's a bit hard for me to understand that security concern when the disclosure is not in real time. I could understand that there would be a security concern if it were in real time.
I think I'm hearing from folks that if there is an act, it doesn't make sense for them to belabour it and they have to accept it, and I think that's where we are. There are some specific questions as to the power the Speaker holds, and I think those powers would probably be defined as rather exceptional in nature and would still need to adhere to the spirit of the act.
There are some technical questions regarding the incredibly rare circumstances in which there would be an unforeseen security concern or infringement of privilege, in which the Speaker would have a ruling, but those would be very limited circumstances, I would think, would they not?