Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on June 6 respecting her ability to participate in the committee proceedings relating to government bills.
The member alleges that motions adopted in committee have impeded her ability to fully represent her constituents and to fully do her job. In her intervention, the member acknowledges that committees of the House have adopted motions to allow independent members to move amendments to government bills.
On June 9, 2015, the Speaker ruled on a closely related matter raised by this same member, and I quote:
I also know that committees have shown great flexibility in the past, not only about deadlines, but more generally in how they consider amendments in clause-by-clause. In fact, one such example of that flexibility is the very process that committees adopted, allowing members of non-recognized parties to have their amendments considered in committee.
Moreover, on May 7, 2014, the Speaker ruled on a point of order raised by this same member about her ability to move amendments and to speak to them in committee.
The Speaker ruled, and I quote:
It is evident that the committee chose to handle its consideration of [the bill] in a particular way. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated, and ultimately agreed to. [...] Such decisions are the exclusive responsibility of the committee. I do not believe that it is for the Chair to second-guess how committees choose to manage their business.
These rulings speak directly to the matter raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I support the member's right to air her grievances in the House. However, I do not support or agree with her assertion that by having committees adopt a process to allow and include members from non-recognized parties in the amendment of government bills, this somehow interferes with her ability to discharge her parliamentary functions. I suggest that it accomplishes the opposite.
The precedents are clear on this issue, and therefore I submit that this matter does not meet the test of a prima facie question of privilege.