Debates of April 6th, 2017

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend, the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona.

This is déjà vu all over again. We have had this issue more than a few times in my brief time in the House of Commons. An event takes place, members of Parliament are unable to access the Hill, we redress it through the Speaker, and always, from my experience, we take it to the procedure and House affairs committee.

The “he said, she said” that is going on right now with the member for Winnipeg North is unhelpful in actually exploring what we need to understand to make sure this does not happen again.

For folks who do not understand, or perhaps appreciate, why this is so important, the ability of members of Parliament to actually gain access to the House of Commons to cast their votes on behalf of our constituents is a right and a privilege that extends back to the creation of Parliament itself. In olden times, there were kings and queens who did not like what the commoners had to say. They did not particularly want a certain thing to pass, and they would physically bar members of Parliament from coming in, speaking, and voting.

We extend that forward. We appreciate and recognize the power of any majority government and the power of a Prime Minister. At no time could we ever allow one inch to be given over to the idea that the Prime Minister, or anyone connected to the Prime Minister, could prevent, block, or inhibit a member of Parliament from gaining access to a vote.

One can easily remember the scenario in which we had a minority Parliament, and we had many confidence votes on which the government could fall or stand. I can remember a former colleague, who has now since passed, casting a deciding vote as to whether the government would continue on in its function and duty or whether the country would return to an election. That was within the last decade. That was not that long ago.

One understands the importance of what we are talking about here today. It is paramount to the basic role and duties we have as members of Parliament.

Let us take care of one thing right away. It is the Liberals who seem to be standing in the way of taking this debate to its proper place. We are meant to be talking about the budget and some other important things in the House of Commons that concern all Canadians, yet this has come up from a Speaker's ruling we had earlier today, which takes precedence over everything else that goes on in the House of Commons. However, to properly understand and analyze what it is that happened and how to make sure it never happens again, the floor of the House of Commons is not necessarily the best place. We cannot call witnesses forward here today. We are not able to request interviews with the security officials or with my colleagues who first raised this issue. We have the debate as it takes place under our given rules. Clearly, the best place to take it is the committee, where the committee can explore and understand and bring the witnesses it needs and then, finally, support the Speaker's ruling as to what actually happened and how to make sure it never happens again.

The Liberals have decided not to accept that amendment so far. So far, they have said no, let us just keep talking about it in the House of Commons. The Liberal representative so far has also tried to infer from the Speaker's ruling that the Speaker has determined what actually happened and that it was the media bus that caused the problems.

I too have read the Speaker's ruling several times. I have read it in great detail, and in no place does the Speaker say that. All the Speaker does is recount the events of the day. There was one bus that had a bunch of media on it. It went through the gate. There were several buses behind it that contained members of Parliament and that were picking up other MPs. They were prevented. All we have is the testimony, so far, and I will call it testimony, from my friend from Beauce, who said that he went to the security official who has there and asked what the problem was, what the hold up was. He said they needed to get to the House to vote. He was told, and I believe him, because I have no reason not to, that the Prime Minister's motorcade, which was empty, was in the way and that the security protocols at that time said nobody was allowed to move.

I have been in that scenario in which the Prime Minister's motorcade, all MPs have seen this, is coming through the parliamentary precinct. It is long, with big, black SUVs, and on it goes and everything stops around it, as is right, because we need to have security around the Prime Minister. No one denies that. However, in this instance, the motorcade was empty. MPs were trying to get to a vote in the House of Commons and hear the debate on the budget. These are important things. If that was the case, if MPs were denied on that excuse, then we have a problem, because that excuse could arise at almost any time the Prime Minister's motorcade wanted to just park somewhere and block the gates of Parliament, or a gate of Parliament that is often used. There is one we predominantly use if we are taking a bus up onto the Hill.

Clearly, if that is what we have in front of us, that is serious. That matters. That could, in future, and we are not suggesting it now, be an abuse of power to prevent MPs from coming in.

That could happen, if that is what took place. That is what we have. At no point in his ruling earlier this morning did the Speaker say the problem was the media bus, to correct my friend from Winnipeg North, as loud as he would like to say it and as often as he would like to repeat it. That is not what is in the Speaker's ruling. He is entitled to his opinions, but not his own facts.

These are the facts. We have the testimony from the member for Beauce who had asked the security official. We have the Speaker's ruling in front of us, which said that all that happened is these buses lined up and could not get in.

When it comes to the Liberals, as Shakespeare would say, methinks they doth protest too much. They are asking us how we dare accuse the Prime Minister of trying to ramrod something through, how we dare accuse the Prime Minister of trying to bully Parliament or prevent MPs from speaking on behalf of their constituents.

Wait. What is going on at the procedure and House affairs committee right now? Right, there is a Liberal motion at committee that speaks to what is exactly relevant today, which is the ability of members of Parliament to have the privilege that is given to us, not by the government, not by the Prime Minister's office, but by our constituents, the privilege of access to the Hill.

This is relevant for my friend from Winnipeg, who likes to say that there is too much heckling in the House of Commons, yet sometimes, from time to time, he just cannot seem to resist it himself. He needs to heckle and get into the debate, and then minutes later will rise to his feet or speak to the media and say that what is wrong with our democracy is that there is too much heckling. Then he returns to the House of Commons to continue his practice of heckling members of Parliament while we are trying to speak.

The question today is this. Is there some sort of pattern developing within the government? I think that is a relevant question. We see the Liberals trying to take the rules of the House of Commons and force down the throats of the opposition that the government of the day should have unfettered power to shut down debate, that it should have new prorogation rules, that it should have the Prime Minister only come in on Wednesdays to answer questions, and that it does not need the support of opposition parties to change the rules of the House of Commons.

We are now asking a question about access to the House of Commons, and how that access was denied. These are good questions to ask, which should be of grave concern to all parliamentarians. Liberals might enter into some delusional world in which they say that they are the government now and will be the government forever. They may think they can change the rules of Parliament to favour the government, because that will never come back to bite them. They think they can make it so that a prime minister's motorcade can block MPs from gaining access to voting on behalf of their constituents, because they are the government right now and maybe it works for them.

I remind my Liberal colleagues of recent history when it was not them in government, and that our role as we pass across this stage is to make sure that we leave the place better than we found it, to make sure that we can do the jobs that people send us here to do. It is nothing more complicated or more simple than that.

However, we see the tendency in the government to say that rules only apply to other people, but that it is special because it is Liberal. The Liberals feel they can have special rules that help Liberals. As the House leader for the Liberals said on the floor of the House of Commons, when we asked about the Prime Minister taking special advantages, he is the Prime Minister after all. Oh goodness, he is the Prime Minister after all.

When the Prime Minister stands in this place, he is just another member of Parliament, which is what we all are. We have the Westminster style of governance. We do not vote in prime ministers. We vote in members of Parliament. News flash to the current government members: as much Kool-Aid as they have drunk, the actual reality of how our system works is that we all have the right to access this place, the right to speak freely on behalf of the people we represent to the best of our abilities, and the right to challenge the government when it makes bad decisions, as we are doing at the procedure and House affairs committee right now.

Why, in heaven's name, is there some discussion? It is real and it is important. The Speaker has ruled that we have a prima facie case of privilege that members of Parliament, two in this case at least, had their rights of access denied, which is as serious as it gets in an open and free democracy. When members are blocked from voting, this is a question worth exploring and understanding so that it does not happen again. We have done it several times now.

The best place for this to take place, the best place for us to investigate what actually happened, to hear from security, to hear from the members who were actually present is in a House of Commons committee. The committee that handles that is the procedure and House affairs committee.

Why would Liberals want to block that particular investigation? One has to ask the question why. Are they worried about an answer that may come out of it? I do not know. Let us just do the right thing. Let us make sure that the guaranteed rights to access this place are guaranteed for all members of Parliament, and that this place functions as it should once in a while.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my question is fairly straightforward in the sense that the member heard the opening remarks by the two Conservative speakers on the issue.

There was some concern in regard to why there is so much focus and attention on something that is not included in the Speaker's ruling. The motorcade that is often referred to from the opposition benches was here all day. The Prime Minister was not in the motorcade. However, it seems there is this desire to bring in the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office.

Does the member believe that in itself is relevant to the degree that the focus is on it? I am curious as to what the member believes.

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

Madam Speaker, the point is that I do not know and neither does that member. That is the point. The point is that we have heard in the Speaker's ruling that no conclusions have been drawn, and that member knows this. The Speaker is simply recounting part of what happened.

We also have the recounting of a colleague of ours, who has told us in good faith what he was told by the security official he asked, that the reason for the delay was the Prime Minister's motorcade. It has been said several times. The Prime Minister was here in the House of Commons, not in the motorcade. No one is saying he was sitting in the back of the limo telling the driver to block the bus. The fact is that we do not know, and the only way we are going to find out is if we get the full reports, to which the Speaker has had access, at the procedure and House affairs committee, the committee on which my colleague often sits. That is the best place to explore this.

I assume the next time the Liberals make an intervention they will say that there are still some outstanding and important questions, and they do not like the insinuation that is coming from the Conservatives. The best way to clear this up, as the Prime Minister has often said, is sunlight. That is the best disinfectant, says the Prime Minister of Canada. Okay, then let us follow that advice, bring this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee so we can find out what actually happened, because neither that member nor I know.

We have had important and, I believe, credible testimony from a colleague, and until the point when one of my Liberal colleagues is willing to stand up and say “Liar, liar” to a member of Parliament, then we have to take it as we do in this place, that all members are speaking truthfully.

Let them testify at the procedure and House affairs committee. Let us hear from the security officials. Let us resolve this and make sure it never happens again.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it seems the government, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the House leader, is focused on this having been made up. The Speaker said, “In fact I have received two reports of the incident”. They may be internal reports to the Speaker, specifically from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms. We also have reports by two hon. members of this place who have added in their information.

Whether it be a construction vehicle, government vehicle, public works vehicle, Parliament vehicle—until late October 2014, we had different security services, all with different mandates—the fact is that, when these issues come up, we need to be able to identify them, especially when members of Parliament miss votes because of interference.

Does my fellow British Columbian believe we need to get this to PROC so it can examine whether it was the Prime Minister's motorcade? Whether he was in it or not does not matter. What matters is that members missed the vote. We need to have a closer look at the reports of the members of Parliament in question and also the reports of the security staff and perhaps even the security personnel who made the call. Would that not help to clear all of this up?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think it has been said enough throughout the debate that the job that the security forces have around the House of Commons is an incredibly difficult one. They have to be able to balance access for members of Parliament and the public along with obvious security needs, to keep this place safe for all MPs and staff and the public who visit here.

In terms of the member's specific question, well of course this has to take place if Conservatives and New Democrats all come to the logical conclusion; and I am not sure how the Bloc or the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands feel about it. A committee is where these things always go. When the Speaker says there is a problem like this, the place it goes to next, in my experience, is the procedure and House affairs committee. Maybe someone can correct me, but I have never seen a problem like this go anywhere else, because that is where it belongs. PROC manages the affairs of the House of Commons. That is what that committee is for. If there is an affair of the House of Commons that we have to find out about, it would go to PROC, which is the only place where we will get to the bottom of this. I do not know why the Liberals are standing in the way of finding out what actually happened that day, but we will find out.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to an issue that concerns one of the most important rights of members of the House of Commons, which is to have unfettered access to this place at any time, and particularly when there are votes happening.

A question of privilege has been raised. Members have said they were not able to make it to a vote because they were obstructed. The Speaker has said he does think there is a prima facie case. The appropriate thing to do, and what is typically done, is that it goes to the procedures and House affairs committee. My understanding is that, typically, the committee takes that matter up forthwith and makes a determination.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is quite right to say that it is at committee that this matter should be properly studied, because the committee has the ability to call witnesses and to delve deeper into the details of the issue.

There is some contention as to whether or not it was the media bus that was responsible for the shuttle buses being delayed and therefore members not being able to make it to the House on time for a vote, or whether it was the Prime Minister's motorcade. The Speaker's ruling does not say one way or the other which one it was. That is why it would be good to find out.

The way to find out is to call on the people who were involved, in order to get an accurate representation of what happened. That way we would know. If it is something to do with the Prime Minister's motorcade, then maybe the procedures around what happens with respect to the Prime Minister's motorcade, and other vehicles on the Hill when the motorcade is present, could be modified to ensure it does not fetter members' access to the House of Commons. That is fully possible.

I have been on a bus that was sitting behind the Prime Minister's motorcade by Centre Block. I was only going back to my office at the Confederation building, but I was told by the driver that the rules are they are not allowed to pass the Prime Minister's motorcade. Maybe some bus drivers decide to do that anyway because they are trying to please members of the House, and we appreciate all their good work, but in that particular instance, I was told by that driver that he would not pass the Prime Minister's motorcade because he was under instructions not to do so.

Therefore, in my experience, there is an issue about how the Prime Minister's motorcade interacts with other vehicles on the Hill. If protocols around that are not handled correctly, there is the potential to fetter or obstruct the access of members to the Hill. I am sure all members, including government members, do not want that to be the case, so what we need to do is a detailed examination to make sure that the protocols around that are appropriate and do not get in the way of members getting to the House. The motion before us simply refers this to PROC to get that more detailed answer.

We have heard from members on the government side; well, one member actually. We always know when members of the government are not really comfortable with their own position because it is only the member for Winnipeg North who gets up on his feet. No one else is willing to speak to those issues. We kind of know when the government feels that perhaps it is not on the right side of the issue, because the only one with the gall to get up and speak to it is the member for Winnipeg North. That has been in evidence today.

He said a few things, and I just want to zero in on some of them, because I find them troubling in a couple of different ways. One thing he said was that the amendment to this motion, which simply says that PROC will treat this issue with priority, is not a very good amendment because PROC does that anyway. That is what he said in his speech. I find that passing strange because the Liberals' contention at PROC on another issue right now is that they want certain changes, including a prime minister's question period. They have said these are good reforms and we need to get them through so we can do these things. The funny thing is that we do not need to change the Standing Orders to do that. In fact, we saw that yesterday when the Prime Minister undertook to answer almost every question in question period, although not every question. There were no changes to the Standing Orders required in order to do that, and yet they say they want to change the Standing Orders. If changes to motions and rules are redundant simply because one can do it anyway, then they should not be asking for a change to the Standing Orders in order to do prime minister's questions.

I fear that the member, perhaps unintentionally, and I am being generous because we are in the House of Commons, is being inconsistent, and I would not deign to say disingenuous, when he makes that particular argument.

He also said that he had reservations about sending it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because of the quality of the debate so far in the House and he was concerned the debate in the PROC committee would be a waste of time. It is completely wrong for members in this place to prejudge the deliberations and decisions at committees.

If he wants to be an advocate in this place, as he sometimes says he is, for the independence of committees, then he has some nerve to suggest that we might consider not referring a matter that is totally appropriate to refer to a particular committee because he already has some prejudicial notions about what members at the committee might say or do during those deliberations, or what the committee might decide. That line of argument shows a serious disrespect for committees and it is important to not let that go unanswered.

I wanted to take some time in my remarks to address those comments made by the member for Winnipeg North. He often makes reference to his long parliamentary career, over 25 years, but if he had spent more time listening over those 25 years as opposed to talking, he would not have made the arguments he made earlier in this place. I really do think it is just wrong to make decisions about whether to refer something to committee based on speculation about what some members may or may not say at committee. When we spell it out like that, it is obvious that it is ridiculous and disrespectful to make decisions based on that kind of speculation.

That is what we want to do. We want to do what is the usual thing to do with a serious matter of privilege. I do not think one has to be a long-time parliamentarian to appreciate the problem with the idea of interfering with members' access to the chamber, particularly when there are votes. I am not saying that has been abused in this case. It was likely not intentional. One of the reasons for sending it to committee for a detailed analysis is for the committee to be able to speak to those involved and clear the air so that there are no worries or concerns that the blocking of members' access to the House was intentional.

That is what we want to do. We want to take this matter to committee, because if it does start that blocking members' access to the House of Commons is allowed, it is clear to see how a government that may not have the best of intentions—and I am not saying that is the case with the current government or governments of the past, but some hypothetical future government.

We cannot allow it to be acceptable that potentially, and we don't know, protocols around the Prime Minister's motorcade are allowed to interfere with members' access to the House, or whether it is protocols around the media bus, or whatever it is that got in the way of these particular members reporting on time for the vote, because let us face it. We have seen procedural shenanigans around here. If we allow shenanigans to interfere with members' right of access to the House of Commons, an unscrupulous government may start to see it as a legitimate procedural tactic as to where to put media buses or a prime minister's motorcade, because it is a close vote.

I will remind members on the other side of the House, as they may not know or have forgotten, that not all parliaments are majority parliaments. It is also not in all cases, even in majority governments, that the government wins the vote. In fact, I recall a vote held last spring on Bill C-10 that was a tie vote and the Speaker had to break the tie. It is only because the vote was on the report stage of that bill that it proceeded. That is how the Speaker is traditionally required to vote in order to continue debate. Had the vote been on third reading stage, that bill would have been defeated.

Imagine if we were debating this question of privilege with respect to that vote and not what we are discussing. We can imagine that tensions would be a lot higher. It is no less an offence to block members from one vote, even though it may be known that a majority is likely going to win the vote, than it is on a tie vote, but it is harder to have the conversation around a close vote, because tensions are that much higher.

Therefore, it is important that we have the discussion now and we not wait for it to be a monumental vote, because at that point the issues of substance and procedure will become so entangled that we will not be able to make an appropriate decision.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice that the member across the way made reference to the Prime Minister's hour, something which the Prime Minister talked a great deal about going into the election. It was part of the whole modernization of Canada's Parliament, and we have been inviting members to be a part of that discussion. I appreciate the member's raising the issue at this point, but I wonder if he could further expand on why he felt it was important to raise exactly what is part of the Liberal platform, and that is the need to have a question period for the Prime Minister so that whether a member is asking the 25th question or the fifth question, the member would have the opportunity to get an answer directly from the Prime Minister.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the member for Winnipeg North for proving my point, that he is the only member on the government side who is willing to get up and speak to this issue.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether the government, by refusing to have this debate at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, is once again being partisan.

In this place, we do not have access to all the information about what really happened when the members for Beauce and Milton were prevented from arriving on time for the vote on the budget. We want to have access to witnesses, which is not possible here. We want to find solutions in order to prevent this from happening to other MPs, whether they are members of the Liberal party or of any other party.

The Prime Minister's motorcade has the right to drive on the Hill and to ensure his security. However, when his cars are empty, as was possibly the case on March 22, is there a way to let the members' bus go around it?

There are a number of elements to be studied and we do not have all the answers here. It is very important that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs look into this issue and that the Liberals stop resisting this type of study.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

Given the debate that is taking place in the House today, it is obvious that there is still no consensus on the facts. There are still questions that need to be asked and answers that need to be given about what happened and how to avoid this type of situation in the future.

Once we know what happened, we will have to ask ourselves how we can prevent this from happening again. Obviously, that work should be done in committee because we will need to hear from witnesses and examine the issue, things that we do not have time to do in the House today, without any preparation. Tradition dictates that such issues be examined in committee.

I must admit that the fact that the government does not want to do things as they have always been done, or in other words, that it does not want to ask the committee to examine this issue, shows some partisanship. I do not know why the government does not want to proceed in this manner. The member for Winnipeg North said that the amendment seeking to make this issue a priority is unnecessary, but I beg to differ because there is a problem of good faith here with regard to procedure. I therefore think that it would be completely appropriate to give the committee that instruction.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg said that he did not understand why the parliamentary secretary does not appear to be in favour of supporting this motion. I wonder if the member could speculate on the reasons the parliamentary secretary and indeed members of the Liberal government are saying that this is a very important issue, which we all agree it is, but the Liberals are not prepared to put some action behind those words.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a funny situation to have government members, well really one government member say on behalf of the government, I suppose, that this is a very important issue and then say that the government does not want to have it studied. Presumably if there are outstanding questions and it is an important issue, we would want to get answers to those questions. Although I am not one to speculate wildly, one is tempted to infer that the government does not want the answers or it would be interested in the study.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate on a question of privilege, a debate that is very important.

I had intended to speak directly to the substance of the debate, but I feel compelled to respond to the insinuations, these little things that the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona said. He said several things.

First, he said that he was very concerned about the debate, but he added that members were not participating in it, especially Liberal government members. Now I am here, and I was waiting my turn to have the chance that the Speaker would give me the floor to take part in this debate. Making false accusations and misleading our honourable members is a bad way of behaving in the House. I hope that the hon. member will have the courage to apologize, because it is not true.

I know the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. We were in the same cohort of MPs in 2015. We have spoken to one another many times. I think he is an honourable man. Unfortunately, I think this debate does not reflect his abilities or generosity.

Second, the hon. member argued that there is some doubt about what happened on March 22. I will quote the Speaker of the House when he rendered his decision:

In fact, I have received two reports of the incident. The first, from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, provides an excellent minute-by-minute summary of events and is supplemented by witness statements. The second was received from the acting director of the Parliamentary Protective Service.

I cannot imagine that the hon. member is making false accusations against the Speaker because it was crystal clear that there were two reports: a minute-by-minute report of what happened and a very thorough report, which he very respectfully shared with the House of Commons and all its members.

Mr. Speaker, I must mention one thing. Once again, I am a new MP, even after 18 months in the House, and I forgot to say that I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

Questions of privilege are very important, so I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the NDP who indicated how important it is for members to have access to this place. He quoted what is on the back of his parliamentary ID:

Under the law of parliamentary privilege, the bearer has free and open access at all times, without obstruction or interference, to the precincts of the Houses of Parliament to which the bearer is a member.

This is important because it goes back in the history of the House to the mother of all parliaments in Westminster back in the 16th century, in terms of making sure that members of the Commons always have the privilege, the right, to be here and to take their place in this place to represent their people, to enact laws, to participate in debates, and so on.

That is a fundamental, important role of members of Parliament. We should not be impeded in doing that.

What we saw in this situation was described by the Speaker in his ruling earlier today: “Based on these reports, here is what appears to have happened on March 22nd. At approximately 3:47 p.m., the bollards at or by the vehicle screening facility were lowered to allow for the arrival of a bus transporting journalists to Centre Block for the presentation of the budget. The media bus, under Parliamentary Protective Service escort, immediately proceeded to Centre Block. Seconds later, after the media bus had proceeded, a House of Commons shuttle bus arrived at the vehicle screening facility but was not allowed to proceed to Centre Block. In the ensuing minutes, two more shuttle buses arrived at the vehicle screening facility and were similarly delayed. I am informed that members were on at least some of these buses.”

The Speaker went on to say, “During these delays, which lasted a total of nine minutes, two members, the member for Milton and the member for Beauce, were waiting at the bus shelter near the vehicle screening facility. At approximately 3:54 p.m., the member for Beauce entered the vehicle screening facility and made inquiries of parliamentary protective staff about the delays and then decided at approximately 3:55 p.m. to leave the bus shelter and walk up the Hill.”

It is perfectly clear that access to Parliament Hill and the buses transporting MPs to the House were delayed because there was a media bus. It had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's motorcade. The Speaker was very clear on that point.

However, there are allegations and rumours about it being the Prime Minister's fault. I think people should be very careful about what they say in the House of Commons. Not only are our remarks heard by our House colleagues and Canadians tuning into CPAC across the country, but they are also printed in the official report of the House of Commons. Those official reports will live on as long as Canada's Parliament.

Personally, I believe it is our privilege to participate in these debates and to have a seat in the House of Commons and it is our responsibility to choose our words carefully. There is no need to add fuel to the fire when it comes to questions of privilege. We need to be careful about what we say and do.

I feel that the Speaker's ruling was very clear about the problem having nothing to do with the Prime Minister's security. It had to do with the bus transporting journalists to the House of Commons.

We all know that under the Standing Orders, when a question of privilege is raised it must be taken into consideration immediately. That is why we are all participating in this debate today.

I would ask my colleagues to refrain from making false accusations and spreading rumours, and instead talk about facts that are accurate, facts that were stated by the Speaker of the House in his ruling this morning.

I am pleased to have had the chance to speak in the House of Commons.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the intervention by my friend across the way today. I find him always to be very upright, and he kept very much to the issue that is before the House in the motion. I appreciate that.

The member finished his speech by talking about the importance of facts, and I totally agree with him. We have to have some commonality of facts, but again, the Speaker has only given a prima facie ruling. I go back to page 2 of the Speaker's ruling, where the Speaker says, “In fact I have received two reports of the incident”, and then outlines what the incident was. Then further on he says, “based on those reports”.

Reports are important, but they are only initial reports. Oftentimes, for brevity in this place, certain items may not be raised in such a way as to show their importance.

Would the member agree that it is important for our members of Parliament who are on the committee, our peers, to be able to examine the issue further, define all the relevant facts, and ask questions of the authorities and of witnesses? As was stated previously by the Speaker, interfering with a member of Parliament and their privileges of parliamentary access can be a cause to be found in contempt of the House. That is a very serious charge.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to say, but first of all let me thank the member from British Columbia for his intervention and for reading a part of what the Speaker said in his ruling earlier today.

I would like to provide the full context of what the Speaker said on the same page 2. I have the English version; I know I said it in French earlier on, but I will read it in English.

He said, “In fact I have received two reports of the incident. The first, from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms”—and this is the important part for the hon. member—“provides an excellent minute-by-minute summary of events and is supplemented by witness statements.”

I do not think it could be any clearer. I would hate to think that we would want to accuse the Speaker of not providing an accurate and a clear summary to his colleagues, the members of Parliament. I do not think that is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer felt compelled to respond to some of what I had to say, and I would like to respond in turn.

I think he is sometimes a little quick to throw the red card with respect to my comments, but I am quite confident that the record will bear me out. If we look at the amount of time available to Liberal members in this House and look at how much of it is taken by the member for Winnipeg North on this debate and many other debates, we will find my claim is accurate. I do not usually apologize for making true claims, so I will not in this case either.

It was the hon. member who was concerned about innuendo, and I see some of that going on. The idea that members who think there should be a study by PROC are somehow undermining the judgment of the Speaker or declaring a lack of confidence in the Speaker could not be further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, I want to make that clear to you. That is certainly not what is going on.

The member for Beauce has stated in this House that it was reported to him that the reason for the delay was the Prime Minister's motorcade. Is the hon. member suggesting that he is not willing to take those remarks at face value? I ask because I think we have a legitimate difference in trying to understand what happened. We have hon. members who have said different things happened. The appropriate thing to do is study it. Is he calling the member for Beauce someone who is misleading the House?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in turn, I could ask my hon. colleague from Manitoba whether or not he is calling into question the impartiality of the Speaker. He brought up the part of the ruling in which the Speaker says that in fact he had received two reports of the incident. To say that he said—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Not at all. Not at all. No one has said that. Shame on you for your condescending attitude, and then you pull out that. Shame on you—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

There was too much noise in the chamber. I realize that most of this was at the far end of the chamber, but even up at this end I was unable to hear the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer. Hon. members will have the opportunity to address these matters in the course of the debate, I am sure.

We will go back to the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer. We are out of time, so I will ask him to wrap up quickly, and we will get on to resuming debate.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly apologize for not recognizing that you had stood up. I was not aware that you had stood up at the time and I continued talking.

To summarize very quickly, I am basing my answer to the question from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona on the ruling that was provided by the Speaker. I am assuming that the Speaker had given us an accurate reading. Judging from what I heard from the hon. member when he was interrupting me while I had the floor, he would not call into question the Speaker's ruling either. I think the Speaker's ruling speaks for itself.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to take part in a debate. Today's debate is very important.

I was here when the Speaker handed down his very important ruling on the question of privilege raised on March 22. It is a day we remember well because that was the day that our budget was presented.

The question raised by the hon. member for Milton had to do with obstructed access to the Parliamentary precinct. I think that we can all confirm that as members of Parliament, access to this establishment is a privilege, but also our right so that we may continue to do our very important work of representing the people of our ridings.

It is very important today to ensure that we are accurately depicting the facts that the Speaker raised this morning. I have been here since this morning and I have heard a number of comments about our Prime Minister, his limousines, and all sorts of things that, in the end, have nothing to do with the Speaker's ruling.

It is really important to recap the situation because the facts are crucial and we want to ensure that they are not watered down. The first thing that the Speaker said was that he was prepared to rule on this issue today. He said:

In raising this matter, the member for Milton indicated that she was prevented from attending a vote in the House of Commons and, thus, impeded in the performance of her parliamentary duties when her access to the parliamentary precinct through her normal transport was temporarily blocked. The member for Beauce confirmed that he was subjected to the same delay.

All of the members of the House are well aware of their right to access and other rights, and they are obviously taking this situation very seriously. When the Speaker gave his ruling, he confirmed that it was part of his role to look into this and that he took that role very seriously. He went on to say that, as Speaker, it is his duty to ensure that the privileges of the House and the individual privileges of members are protected, including that of freedom from obstruction, for it is that privilege that gives us unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. I think that we all agree with the facts presented by the Speaker this morning.

The Speaker further stated that he received two reports during his investigation. The first was from the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and the Corporate Security Officer, and it provided an excellent minute-by-minute summary of events and was supplemented by witness statements.

The second report was from the Acting Director of the Parliamentary Protective Service. The Speaker's comments and his decision are based on this information and these facts. The speaker summarized these reports as follows:

Based on these [two] reports, here is what appears to have happened on March 22. At approximately 3:47 p.m., the bollards at the, or by the vehicle screening facility were lowered to allow for the arrival of a bus transporting journalists to Centre Block for the presentation of the budget. The media bus, under Parliamentary Protective Service escort, immediately proceeded to Centre Block. Seconds later, after the media bus had proceeded, a House of Commons shuttle bus arrived at the vehicle screening facility but was not allowed to proceed to Centre Block. In the ensuing minutes, two more shuttle buses arrived at the vehicle screening facility and were similarly delayed. I am informed that members were on at least some of these buses. During these delays, which lasted a total of nine minutes, two members, the member for Milton and the member for Beauce, were waiting at the bus shelter near the vehicle screening facility. At approximately 3:54 p.m., the member for Beauce entered the vehicle screening facility and made enquiries of parliamentary protective staff about the delays and then decided at approximately 3:55 p.m. to leave the bus shelter and walk up the Hill. As members will know, it is at around this time that a vote was commencing in the House.

Still, we can remember that March 22 was budget day, that there was a large media presence and that a lot was going on. When we read the description of the facts as reported, we understand what was happening that day.

In his decision, the Speaker said that he had done some research and provided more citations. He pointed out many things, including the following:

The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated. The Parliamentary Protective Service needs to better familiarize itself with the operations of the House so that its posture reflects and gives priority to the needs of the House, its committees, and its members at all times, and it needs to ensure Parliamentary Protective Service staff are always alert to changing circumstances in this regard.

Therefore, it is very important to ensure that members have access to the grounds; no one is minimizing the importance of that. We always want to make sure that no MP is blocked from accessing Parliament. To continue:

This has come up before. In 2004, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs wrote the following in its 21st report:

The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.

I have read through this morning's ruling several times, and nowhere does it mention limousines impeding access to the Hill. There is nothing in the ruling about that, so it seems odd to me that people would make such comments today.

As members of Parliament, we believe that access to the House is an extremely important privilege. Nobody is denying that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for re-emphasizing the importance of people having the parliamentary privilege to come and vote. However, the crux of the matter is that two members of Parliament were prevented from voting. As we know, votes in the House can sometimes be close.

We will be having votes as early as next week, so there is some urgency to this issue. Therefore, would the member not agree that this should go immediately to PROC and take precedence over what is a longer conversation about the modernization of Parliament?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks and his question.

It is important for us to have this debate in the House today so that we can have the conversation and acknowledge the importance of this privilege. This is a great opportunity for all of the members here today to exchange ideas and keep the conversation going.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to all the exchanges taking place here in the House.

I ran for election, was elected and am proud to represent everyone in my riding of Jonquière. I have the honour of being here, in the House, every day to speak to bills, take part in debates and vote. Those are our main duties in the House, and democracy is important to me.

However, we are finding that our rights are increasingly violated. The right to speak, particularly in committee, and the right of the opposition to take note of what the government is not doing and what it should do is part of our duties, but the right to vote in circumstances such as the budget, where it is important to be present in the House, is of paramount importance.

Therefore, I wonder why the government members, who are absent or do not speak—