Yes. Thank you very much.
I agree with Mr. Lukiwski. I can't imagine that anyone would be opposed. This is one of those issues where it's quite possible a whole lot of the public goes, “Oh, there they go again with their egos and everything”, and you know what? We're just going to have to suck that one up, because this is really not about us as individuals. This is about the rights and privileges of whoever is elected by the Canadian people to serve as a member of Parliament. That's what matters.
I notice from the previous report, Chair, that they can trace this back to April 12, 1733, where they said:
That the assaulting, or insulting, or menacing of any Member of this House in his coming to, or going from the House...is a high infringement of the Privileges of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour.
Interestingly, zoom ahead a few hundred years, and in 2004—lest anyone think this is just some archaic notional thought—the House said again: “Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.” It further stated that the breach of this privilege was not only unacceptable but a contempt of Parliament, which is one of our highest crimes in this place.
The fact remains that when a member is denied access anywhere on the Hill or anywhere that they're entitled to as a member of Parliament, every one of their constituents is disenfranchised at that moment, because under our system we are the voice and representatives of all those people. If we're denied our opportunity to do our full job, then they've been denied—let alone the fact that there was a vote going on, which just heightens it that much more.
So I'm like my colleagues: we don't want to turn this into a total federal case, if you will. We have an awful lot of big issues. But I do think it does warrant going through the steps and then finding one more level of getting it across.
My thought was the same as Tom's, Chair, that this time, no assistant commissioners; the commissioner comes in. I think the Ottawa police play a role, so bring the Chief of Police in here. That's how you're really going to change it. Once it becomes known that this is a big deal, it will stop.
I agree; I can't imagine that the officer thought to themselves, “I've got my hands on an MP here. Now I'm going to show them who's got the power.” That's not what happened. But it's also unacceptable what happened to our colleague under any circumstance, especially during a vote.
If someone says, “Yes, it's security”, then our response is that those who are organizing it—i.e., the PMO and others—have an obligation to organize the visitors in such a way that it doesn't trample on the rights of members of Parliament. It's that simple and it's that important.
So to Yvon, I don't really have a question other than wondering if he has a recommendation or two that he specifically would like us to look at. Having been a whip, he certainly understands the functioning of this place better than most members.
That would be my question to you, Yvon; your thoughts on steps that we should or could take.