Mr. Speaker, I was not previously aware that this issue would come up at this point, although I believe I have responded to something similar a number of weeks back. I will only take a couple of minutes to bring a few issues to the attention of Mr. Speaker today on the issue of privilege.
First, in the Canadian context, a motion virtually identical to this one was ruled on. It was debated in relation to another bill in approximately the late 1980s in the House. I do not have the specific reference. I remember the incident well; I was in the House when the issue occurred at the time regarding another privilege.
We also have before us here an issue that comes from the standing orders that we have before us, where we affirm in one of our standing orders the issue that is before us today. This involves, at one point, a dispute between both Houses. I suppose it has never been resolved in the end, because we have of course a standing order and the other House does not recognize that this standing order could have the effect that we in our House do. That perhaps is an issue that will not be settled today. I do not propose that it come before us at this point, but we have to recognize that it is in a way, I suppose, part of what is at hand.
So we have, then, the issues before the House today, and first, whether this is properly before Parliament. Need I remind the House that we have debated this motion about half a dozen times up to now. Had it been out of order it would have had, I believe, to have been ruled at that time for this motion not to be properly before the House.
As a matter of fact there were interventions many weeks ago about whether or not this motion was properly before the House, not basing it on the same question as today, perhaps, but nevertheless invoking that the motion was not properly before the House. The Speaker ruled that it was properly before the House. From that ruling of Mr. Speaker at the time, then, the logical conclusion is that the issue is properly before the House.
In summary, then, there are three points. First, the issue is properly before the House. Mr. Speaker has already ruled in that regard. Second, regardless of what has been invoked regarding the Australian parliament, we have our own precedent in the House of Commons based on the issue of the late 1980s as we dealt with it at the time and as the Speaker ruled upon it at the time. Third, the House does not recognize that its privileges are breached; it reaffirms, at the same time, its privileges, which we claim we always had and which we also reassert in our standing orders.