Mr. Speaker, as you know, privilege is defined as anything which affects the functioning of the House of Commons.
It is stated in Beauchesne's citation 24 that parliamentary privilege is "the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by Members of each House individually".
Therefore, it is both. It is not just as it affects a member who was referred to but all members of the House.
The minister was quite correct and quite able to do so. He does have a legitimate case in raising a question of privilege even if it does not necessarily apply to himself. The question was asked of the minister. That is the second reason why it is, I would suggest, quite appropriate and the duty of the minister to bring the matter up.
I want to remind the Chair very briefly of what was said. One member of the House was accused of being in conflict of interest by being co-opted by a constituent in exchange for getting some sort of a reward. Finally, a minister of the crown was said by another member of this House to be pig-headed. All of that was said in the space of two questions by the same member.
The Speaker has ruled on a number of occasions in the past that similar language was out of order. I will give a number of examples. Someone who has apparently reneged on a promise has been ruled out of order by the Speaker. Language far less offensive than that heard today has been ruled out of order. Members making statements that are untrue have been ruled out of order. It goes on and on. Even such words as ignoramus have been ruled out of order.
To make such accusations as have been made, not against one but against two hon. members, one being a minister of the crown, is a point of privilege. I suggest that the Speaker would probably want to take this matter under advisement and rule on it at some point in the future. It is a serious matter that affects all of us in the House.