Debates of Sept. 25th, 2014

Business of the House

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the majority of members present in the House were NDP.

Thanks to that majority, we were able to set aside the government's agenda and we debated an issue that we think is extremely important: the fact that 1,200 aboriginal women have been beaten or have disappeared over the past several years.

This is a national crisis, a national tragedy. We think this issue is extremely important. A public inquiry for these women and their families is needed. Some eloquent speakers have addressed this important issue, even since yesterday evening's vote. We will continue to raise these questions.

That is one of the files we have discussed in recent days.

Would the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons like to tell us what the government has planned for the coming week?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of missing and murdered aboriginal women, I was pleased that last night the House of Commons had an opportunity to vote to concur with the excellent work in the report done by the committee of parliamentarians that examined that issue, one of well over two dozen such studies that have been undertaken on the subject. They have been helpful in forming the government's action plan that is taking place to help address this problem and help to improve the conditions of aboriginal women on reserve and elsewhere.

In terms of the government's agenda, this afternoon we will continue the second reading of Bill C-41, the Canada-Korea economic growth and prosperity act. This important bill would implement our landmark free trade agreement with South Korea, Canada's first in the Asia-Pacific region, I might add. It would provide expanded access for Canada's businesses and workers to a growing G20 economy, Asia's fourth largest.

Free trade with South Korea is projected to create thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians by boosting Canada's economy by almost $2 billion annually and increasing our exports to South Korea by almost one-third.

That debate will continue next week, on Tuesday.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will see the conclusion of the report stage of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. The House will recall that we are working to implement this legislation before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford takes effect before Christmas.

Monday shall be the third allotted day, with the New Democrats choosing the topic of discussion.

I am designating Monday as the day appointed pursuant to Standing Order 66.2 for the conclusion of the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

On Wednesday, the House will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime legislation.

Thursday morning should see the end of the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act. Then we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-40, the important bill to establish the Rouge national urban park. After question period we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-5, which would also, in a similar vein, create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

Friday will be set aside for third reading of Bill C-36.

Physical Obstruction—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised earlier today by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

I also want to thank the hon. members for Winnipeg North, Burnaby—New Westminster, Westmount—Ville-Marie, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for their comments.

The denial of access by members to the precinct is a serious matter, particularly on a day when votes are taking place. There are many precedents to be found regarding incidents of this kind, including my own ruling of March 15, 2012.

In view of that strong body of jurisprudence and given the information shared with the House by the numerous members who have made interventions, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie matter of privilege in this case. I would like to invite the member for Acadie—Bathurst to move his motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

moved:

That the question of privilege regarding the free movement of Members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct during the state visit of September 25, 2014, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to explain what happened. I think it is important for people who listened to the debate on the question of privilege and the Speaker's ruling.

As everyone is aware, the current Speaker used to be a simple member of Parliament, just like us. There is a bell and a light in his office. Hearing the bell ring or seeing the light come on means that we should go to Parliament to take part in a vote.

A vote was called. As usual, I left my office and took the green bus to Parliament Hill. Shortly afterward, traffic was stopped, and the bus driver said that we would be better off walking if we wanted to get to Parliament because everything had been stopped for several minutes. A number of MPs were on the bus, which was behind the Confederation Building. We set out on foot. When I got to the corner of Bank and Wellington, at the entrance to the Confederation Building, I saw several RCMP officers and several Ottawa police officers on motorcycles. When I tried to cross Bank Street to go to Parliament, an RCMP officer told me, “you're not going through”.

Then I told the RCMP officer that I was a member of Parliament. He said, and these are the exact words he used, “I don't care”.

After that, I said, “We're having a vote in the House of Commons”.

He answered, “I don't care”.

I told him that we had privilege and that I had the right to go to the House of Commons during votes. He said, “I don't care. I am under strict orders and nobody is going through”.

At the same time, the officer from the Ottawa Police Department said, “You guys get on the sidewalk”.

I followed the order of the officer. I have a lot of respect for the officer, but at that time I understood that he did not know his job, that he did not know his responsibility or that the House of Commons is for the members of Parliament and they must be able to come in and do their work. It is our place of work.

To me, this is just as serious on the opposition side as it is on the government side. I do not think the government would have loved it if all of the opposition members were in Parliament, but the members for the government were stuck outside and could not come in and vote. Imagine if it was a vote of confidence. We would then end up in an election.

Maybe they do not understand how important this place of work is.

I have been a member of Parliament for 17 years now. I would say I have gained some experience over that time.

I remember another time when Ottawa police officers refused to give my colleague, Bill Blaikie, access to Parliament because they did not recognize him. Mr. Blaikie said he was not required to show his ID because the police officers were supposed to know and recognize the MPs.

This morning, there was another incident. An RCMP officer was posted not in downtown Ottawa, but on Parliament Hill. Worse yet, I introduced myself to the RCMP officer as a member of Parliament. He said, “I don't care”.

This is a breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament. The people of Acadie—Bathurst elected me because they wanted me to work for them. This is my place of work. I represent the constituents of my riding.

I worked at a number of different places before. I worked in sawmills and mines. Visitors were welcome. The company never prevented me from working because someone came to visit us. I have never heard of a private company saying that it did not want its employees to enter the workplace because there were visitors.

Here it is worse because this is the House of Commons, where we make laws and where we discharge a fundamental responsibility. By virtue of my privilege, I have the right to go to the House of Commons, vote and not be stopped by anyone. I have the right to listen to all the debates in the House of Commons. I have the right to attend all the House of Commons committees. Today I felt that my privilege and that of several of my colleagues was breached.

I want all my colleagues to support me because one day, when we are no longer here, this attitude of certain RCMP officers is going to cause a mess, as they say back home. We must be respected in the name of those we represent.

If they do not want to respect me, that does not bother me. It is not me personally who matters. However, the MP who represents the 80,000 people from Acadie—Bathurst must be shown some respect. All the members in the House need to be shown respect when they want access to their place of work because they have a fundamental responsibility to the democracy of this country that must not be interfered with.

This has happened on several occasions. When the Prime Minister of Israel was here on March 2, 2012, security guards prevented the member for Winnipeg Centre from entering the parliamentary precinct. He raised a question of privilege, and the committee examined the issue and ruled in his favour.

Why is the message not being passed on? What is preventing it from getting out? The same question was asked in Bill Blaikie's time. It keeps coming up. It is not enough to simply say that we are right and not fix the problem. One day, this is going to cause a mess.

Votes in the House of Commons are rather important. I have been here for 17 years. I have seen people come from the hospital in an ambulance, still hooked up to an IV, to vote in the House. That shows just how important these votes are. This morning, we were prevented from accessing the House of Commons because there was a foreign visitor. I have a great deal of respect for the House of Commons security guards and the RCMP. However, when an RCMP officer tells me that he has been given very strict orders to prevent anyone from getting through, then the person who gave those orders did not do his job properly.

I am therefore asking the House to adopt this motion and to get to the bottom of things once and for all. This problem needs to be resolved and people need to communicate. Today, all members should feel as though one of their privileges was violated. That is unacceptable in a democracy and in a parliament. I am sure that other democracies in the world would not close the House of Commons because there were visitors present. That privilege is already in place.

Mr. Speaker, as you said, the case that I presented to the House of Commons has been accepted and must be examined. I am therefore asking all my colleagues to work together to examine this issue. This has to stop once and for all. Members must be shown respect by virtue of the responsibility they have to the people of this country and our democracy. I am therefore asking that this privilege be respected.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the honourable member.

A few years ago, when the President of the United States was here in Parliament, I tried to get in as an MP. Some Ottawa police officers prevented me from getting near the building.

This is not a new problem. This has happened before and it is quite appalling. It goes against the rules of this place. I am taking the hon. members' comments very seriously because of my own experience.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Employment and Social Development for his comments. As he said, it is not the first time that this has happened and it has happened several times. We have to find a solution to this problem. If this is coming from Parliament's security officers, they should all know us. That is what Bill Blaikie said in his day. That is terrible. We have security officers to provide security for Parliament and they do not know who we are. Today, it was even worse. I told the officer that I was an MP and he said, “I don't care”. I have a problem with that.

There was a vote in the House. It could have been any kind of vote, it could have been very important. He said, “I don't care”. I went even further and said that the government could fall. “I don't care”. I forgot one thing: he even said that I should have voted earlier. I have no control over that.

At that time, I tried to be very polite and said, “You're not my boss”, but he did not care. That type of attitude should not be accepted. He said he was under strict orders from the top, so that is what has to be looked at.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is only an intervention I want to make in this debate.

As the minister pointed out rightly, this has happened before, again and again. We have made changes to the way that security is meant to interface, particularly when foreign dignitaries are here on the Hill. We all can understand, and I am sure the member for Acadie—Bathurst understands, that when certain foreign leaders are here, security conditions change because of the higher security threat than when Parliament is doing its normal functions.

The challenge that I have, and I put this through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government, the powers that be in this place, is that we made accommodations before where off-site security forces, be it the municipal police or the RCMP, who may not be as familiar with the procedures in the House of Commons, because this is obviously a unique place constitutionally, are accompanied by House of Commons security at these points of intervention.

The House of Commons security, as all members of Parliament would know, have familiarity with us and have an understanding of the importance of what my friend from Acadie—Bathurst talks about, the ability to go forward and get into the House of Commons for sometimes critical votes.

My question to him and to all members is this. Can we not finally solve this thing that keeps happening to members of Parliament from all sides, where they are prevented from doing their lawful duties, and finally establish a security protocol that works both for the security services and members of Parliament who are simply trying to do what my friend was doing, which was represent the good people of Acadie—Bathurst?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague said but this goes a little further. This RCMP officer was on Parliament Hill. On top of that, he said he did not care what was happening and that he got his orders from higher up. An officer follows the orders of his boss and he was very clear, “My order is that nobody is getting through”. That is why this investigation needs to go further into how the information is relayed to those people.

There was more than one MP there, all saying, “We have to vote”, and his answer was, “I don't care because I've been told nobody is getting through”. That is why I am saying it goes further than that officer. It goes into the organization and how the orders are given to those people. That is why it is important to go to the committee, conduct a study, and talk with the people who give those orders.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. This was truly tragic for him because he was coming to do his job in this place and also because it is a breach of the privileges of members of Parliament.

I speak of a process that has become increasingly routine. I have been searching for historical precedents, but it is certainly becoming routine in this place to convert Parliament, as I mentioned earlier today, into something of a photo op for staged greetings, red carpets and flags.

I recall from access to information requests uncovered some years back that the current Prime Minister was exploring the possibility of turning the former U.S. embassy across the street into something of an imperial foyer for greeting foreign heads of state. The place to greet foreign heads of state with better security and without interfering with our work here is Rideau Hall.

Rare events in our past history have involved speeches by, for instance, the president of the United States to a joint session of Parliament. However, that is rare in our history and it is much more appropriate that we remember that we are a constitutional monarchy, the Prime Minister is first among equals, and the work of this place should not be made secondary to photo ops.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member is getting at, but I thank her for the question.

For instance, in the case before us today, they were aware that there was a vote. It is up to Parliament's security service to prevent visitors from entering until the members of Parliament are in the House of Commons to exercise their right to vote. They do not have to parade around Wellington Street and Bank Street to get here. There are direct entrances. By using certain doors, we would not really have to bother the people coming to Parliament. However, they closed the grounds entirely. Access to Parliament was blocked because someone was coming to visit Parliament.

I have visited dozens of parliaments, together with the Speaker of the House. I can guarantee that parliaments in other countries have never put their work on hold for us. That has never happened. Never has the access of those members of parliament been blocked. We would go there and the members had priority. That is their place of work.

This is Canada's democracy. This is where things happen, and yet a parliamentarian, democratically elected to represent Canadians, cannot enter Parliament when a vote is being held. Let us put this on the record, I was on time today, but I could have been late. The Standing Orders are clear and state that absolutely nothing can prevent me from going to my office and the House to fulfill my duties. However, this is what happened today; our parliamentary rules have been violated.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am allowed, but I would like to raise a new point regarding this question of privilege. I wonder whether the Chair could rule on what is going on in this building.

I want to tell the House about something I experienced today. I was denied access to a hallway because a red carpet had been put down for a big event. It was not a big deal, but I was forced to go through the basement to get to the vote. It was not a big deal because I got here on time for the vote.

Nevertheless, I would like the Chair to rule on security issues in this building. I do not think this was a matter of security, since the carpet was for a photo op.

It had the potential to hold me up before I got here. That is as far as I could go.

This is a comment. Not exactly a question.

Perhaps my colleague has something to add to that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the same issue that was raised by the leader of the Green Party. Parliament is our workplace, but we now have red carpets all over the place. More and more visitors are coming, and there is all kinds of buzz. That is all well and good, but I have never seen anything like it elsewhere. In other countries, representatives and parliamentarians are never prevented from doing their job. I may be repeating myself, but it is essential to understand that this is important, not just for the member for Acadie—Bathurst, but for all 308 members of the House of Commons.

It is a privilege for us to sit in this House. The day we give up that privilege just because we have visitors, we will have a mess on our hands. I can say that the Brunswick Mine has never stopped mining because they had visitors. I guarantee it. The miners go underground before the visitors arrive. That is one example.

I see a number of violations, and I am asking for this to stop once and for all. An investigation needs to be conducted. We need some rules and we need to follow up on this. We must ensure that parliamentary privilege is honoured, even if we have visitors.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my comments brief. I also want to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his intervention and for raising this point of privilege. I agree with him totally.

He is right. The incident that happened today has happened before. I was a member of the procedures and House affairs committee in 2012 when we examined a point of privilege first brought forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre, who along with two other parliamentarians, was denied access to Centre Block during the visit of the Israeli prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu.

At that time, the procedure and House affairs committee called three witnesses. We heard from the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and an assistant commissioner of the RCMP in charge of policing services. All agreed that the rights of parliamentarians to come to this place, their place of work, as my colleague states, should never be impeded. In fact, the assistant commissioner of the RCMP apologized for the actions of one of its members who stopped three parliamentarians from getting to Centre Block. In two of those three cases, parliamentarians were actually told to take the East Block tunnel to come to Centre Block, rather than walk directly to Centre Block. I believe at that time it was for a vote as well.

During the testimony of the assistant commissioner of the RCMP, who appeared before committee, he said the RCMP would enhance its procedures to try to prevent this type of situation from ever occurring again. In particular, he said three distinct provisions would be taken.

First, all RCMP members who would be on duty during future visits of foreign dignitaries would be more aggressively and properly briefed on the rights of parliamentarians to gain access to Parliament Hill.

Second, he agreed to use the services of both the House of Commons and the Senate security services to assist in identifying parliamentarians, since as we all know, those security services are far more familiar with the faces of parliamentarians than are members of the RCMP.

Third, he agreed to have security from both the House of Commons and the Senate at key access points whenever there was either a state visit or a visit by a foreign dignitary that required additional security forces, such as the RCMP.

We thought at the time when we examined that issue at the procedure and House affairs committee that those three initiatives by the RCMP—plus a few other recommendations that we made at committee, such as encouraging all members to wear their MP pins, making sure they have proper identification, whether security cards, access cards, or that type of thing—that the situation would get better. We also recommended that all outside security forces, when on duty during the visits of foreign dignitaries, not only be briefed more aggressively and properly but have copies of the members handbooks so they could visually identify people who identified themselves as members of Parliament. We thought at that point in time that the situation would get better, because the RCMP had committed to making those enhancements to ensure that this type of incident did not occur again.

Obviously, something fell through the cracks, because it occurred today, and it should not have. At no time should there ever be any situation where members of Parliament, regardless of which party they belong to, are denied access to their place of work. That should never, ever happen.

I welcome the fact that we are going to examine the situation again. As a member of the procedures and House affairs committee, I might suggest in this place, and then later in committee, that if we had commitments from an assistant commissioner that were not followed through, perhaps this time we bring the Commissioner of the RCMP to committee to try to get his assurances that this type of situation will never occur again.

It is an important issue, one I think we should discuss. I will not take any more time because I firmly believe that all members of this place are in agreement with the intervention initially made by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

I would also suggest that perhaps, if there is a willingness from all of my colleagues, we go to a vote right now and make sure this issue gets before the procedure and House affairs committee, because I think we are all in agreement that it should.

[Peter Julian, NDP, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague. My concern is because the votes were scheduled by the government at the same time as we had the protocol that was put into place that was not followed. As my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst has clearly said, it is something that has come up before. Why did the government not plan to ensure that the votes on time allocation did not take place at the same time as the visitors were arriving on the Hill?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, despite the conspiracy theories of my hon. colleague, the business of the government has to go on regardless of there being foreign dignitaries visiting.

We felt, quite frankly, because of the last incident in 2012, that there would be no future instances of members of Parliament being prevented from coming here. We had the assurances of the RCMP that this would not happen again, that further enhancement would be put in place. We see no need to stop the regular practices and functioning of government to try to accommodate what might be a faulty practice by the RCMP. What we need to do, rather than do anything else from the government perspective, is have the RCMP represent themselves again at the procedures and House affairs committee, indicate to them our displeasure that this incident happened, and try to get solid assurances in the future that this will never happen again.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have been on the procedure and House affairs committee many times, and we have discussed that many times before. Would he agree with me that it is not only the RCMP, but it has to be the city police too? There was a city police officer there on a bike who said, “Get on the sidewalk”, giving me orders to get on the sidewalk and not go through. Everybody who is going to participate in the security of this building and people coming in has to be involved. At the time of Bill Blaikie's case, for example, all the police from Ottawa were involved in it, as well as the RCMP and our security.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my colleague, without question. Any outside security forces, whether that be the RCMP, municipal police, or any other security forces, need to assure parliamentarians that our access to this place will not be impeded.

Perhaps a solution might be, if there are instances where not just the RCMP but the municipal police forces are also engaged in security for this place, before visitations take place and before the security forces are put on this precinct, that they are adequately briefed of all the protocols and procedures; that they are all armed, for an example, with a members booklet so they can properly identify members of Parliament; and that they all give assurances to us that they will engage the assistance of both the House of Commons and Senate security forces to assist them in identification of members of Parliament.

However, without question, one thing remains constant: members of Parliament have the absolute right to have access to this place and should not be impeded. We have to put in protocols that ensure that the incident that happened today never happens again.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Acadie—Bathurst certainly brought up a very serious point of privilege for us all. I am in a unique situation. I saw all the buses and cars lined up and I just kept on walking. I walked across the street in front of the Confederation Building and got in. However, I have heard quite a number of complaints from my colleagues who happened to be on the buses and were stopped, and I take at his word what the member for Acadie—Bathurst said and what the police officer said to him.

Certainly it is extremely important. This is our place of work. It is our precinct, and our privileges should not be denied for really any reason.

I am going to make it very clear, and I believe the member of the governing party made it reasonably clear, that we are not blaming either the Ottawa police or the RCMP. They were in a situation of probably not knowing. However, there was the president of the Federal Republic of Germany. I saw that convoy go down, about 10 cars, as I was coming up the hill, and from a policing and security perspective, from their point of view and probably not knowing us as individuals, they had to be concerned as well.

There was a failure somewhere in the system here, and there is another possibility, as I believe the leader of the Green Party mentioned in a blog. Is it always necessary that the heads of countries come to Parliament, or sometimes should they be going to Rideau Hall? That is an interesting angle that may need to be considered as well.

However, I just want to say that the member has a serious and legitimate point of privilege. Things happened here that should not have happened. I am certainly saying that I understand the policing point of view from a security aspect, that the police officers have their orders and concerns as well, so we have to look at that angle, but this should not happen again.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I also agree with my colleague from Malpeque that it should not happen again. It should not have happened today.

It is interesting he made mention that he was not impeded. He was able to come directly to the House where my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst was not.

This has happened before, in fact in 2012, with respect to an incident that the procedure and House affairs committee examined at that time. One of the members of Parliament who was denied access told the story of how she was being denied access at the security checkpoint, yet a civilian employee of the House of Commons who was beyond the security checkpoint walked unimpeded to the House, and said, “I wasn't asked. I wasn't stopped.”

Where is the protocol here? Why is one individual, in this case a member, stopped when another is not? Why is it that one member was stopped in 2012 when a civilian employee was not stopped? These are the types of examinations that we have to engage in at the procedure and House affairs committee.

However, I will say it again and again. I agree with my friend from Malpeque. We are not blaming anyone. We just need assurances from not only the RCMP, but all security forces that before they set foot on a parliamentary precinct in an official capacity, whether because of a visiting dignitary or anything else, they are thoroughly briefed on the protocols that they should be following, with the end of result of no members of Parliament being denied their right to access this place and this precinct.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this has happened before. Apparently, nothing we have tried so far has worked.

I would humbly suggest to the members of the committee studying this issue that they simply talk to the Sergeant-at-Arms about the possibility of holding a round table with the RCMP and municipal police. That way, when something like this going on just off of Parliament Hill affects the Hill, these organizations can coordinate. Clearly, there was no coordination on this. Everyone tried to do their jobs as well as possible, but it was not coordinated at all. Maybe the solution is to get the Sergeant-at-Arms to oversee coordination.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his suggestion. We are open to any suggestions. Obviously, as members of the procedure and House affairs committee, we all have the same ultimate goal in mind, which is to ensure that we are not denied access to this place.

I cannot speak for the committee because the committee has yet to meet on this issue, but since in 2012 we had the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant-at-Arms, plus a representative of the RCMP in front of our committee, I assume at least those three will be called as witnesses to discuss this issue again. Whether we require a round table or some other set of protocols to achieve our goals I am not sure, but I can assure my colleague that we will have a very thorough examination of this issue, particularly since we thought after the 2012 study by the procedure and House affairs committee that this issue would never surface again. Clearly, we were wrong. We must ensure that we deal with it perhaps from a more aggressive standpoint. Nonetheless, we must let the committee do its work. I am sure it will do good work and it will result in a report back to this House which I think all parliamentarians will approve.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a full speech. We are in great unanimity in this place that what occurred to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst should never have occurred. I would like to suggest that if actions are taken, we bear in mind that whatever police officer or security guard quite wrongfully blocked the member's access to this place, there not be any firing or disciplinary action until it is thoroughly investigated as to whether he was instructed, as he reported to the member, that no one passes. I would hate to see an officer who works hard in this place disciplined or fired as a result of this incident.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a question, just a comment. I just want to clarify something. I was stopped when I was on the bus and when I was walking. I wanted to set the record straight because earlier, the member was stopped on the bus while it was crossing the street. I was stopped in two places, on the bus and then in the street.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it requires a response, but I appreciate the member's clarification.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?