Senator Tannas: I want to be clear. Are you suggesting that in addition to the motion that was passed here in the Senate, that made it clear that the Senate controlled the administrative leadership in the Senate and that we were delegating it as part of tradition to the Clerk, but that we held the option to withdraw it? Are you saying that has not been clear in this process or that we need to change some more rules? Is that what you’re saying? That the motion we made is not valid and that we need to go somewhere further or speak a little louder to make sure we do not find ourselves in a misunderstanding with the person who will be hiring the Clerk of the Senate?

Hon. Scott Tannas: My question is for Senator Moncion, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

Senator Moncion, some months ago, the Senate agreed to conditionally support a return to what is sometimes called the “one-clerk model,” where the Prime Minister would appoint the Clerk of the Senate through a hiring process under his or her control — as has been the tradition for more than 100 years — and that concurrent with the appointment, the Clerk of the Senate would have ultimate executive leadership and responsibility for both the legislative and the administrative operations of the Senate. The condition expressed by the Senate was that we retain the right in the future to remove the administration chief executive function from the Clerk and place that responsibility with someone else of our choosing if we so desire.

I’m wondering if you’ve been consulted or been given an opportunity to review the proposed job description for the new Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments. If so, are you satisfied that the Senate’s right to unilaterally remove the role of administration leadership is sufficiently clear to all participants in the recruiting and hiring process?