Thank you very much.
I'd like to go back to the idea that there could very well have been many precedents that are very similar to this that wouldn't have come to your attention because they were never raised as precedents in Parliament.
One example that I would like to point out is on the so-called Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23. I'm looking here at an article by Stephen Maher on February 2, which was two days before that bill was tabled in the House. To go back to Mr. Schmale's point, in the first sentence it says the Conservative government will introduce changes. Then, three paragraphs down “Conservative sources”; another one says it promised the government will “close loopholes to big money, and give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand”. Then it goes on to say, “The bill would remove the Commissioner of Elections Canada, where the investigators work, from Elections Canada and set it up as a separate office, sources say.”
Would this not be considered very similar to the issue we're dealing with? But there was never any point of privilege raised in the House, because perhaps this is considered normal and expected when you're dealing with legislation.