That has become a bit of a problematic issue at the moment.
It depends on the way in which you look at parliamentary privilege.
As I wrote in my article on the evolution of the situation, it must be recognized that there is a much more traditional aspect based on a decision made in 1935. From that perspective, some people really think that parliamentary privilege covers almost anything. It is determined by parliamentarians themselves and by Parliament. Others think that privilege must actually be about the key elements of Parliament’s activities, not other matters. In reality, not all aspects of the House of Commons and the Senate organizations are always parliamentary; they may be about administration, providing food, or office equipment. Are those really matters that should be protected by parliamentary privilege? In my view, the answer is quite clear.
In matters of security, I would say that it is clear and obvious in some respects, but that is not always the case. We can think, for example, about aspects of the work of the employees who provide security. Should those aspects be covered by privilege? I believe, and this opinion is more personal than professional, that the standards established in the Charter must be met. Privilege should be interpreted according to the values and principles in the Charter. In my view, this is very important. I do not actually see it as a kind of restoration of privileges but rather a renewal of privilege.