Debates of April 6th, 2017

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind the hon. member that members do not have the right to refer to the absence of members from the House.

The hon. member can continue.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I got carried away. It is a subject that is creating a lot of emotion right now. Indeed, we see the government's stubbornness in not wanting to discuss the problem in committee, in not wanting to shed light on the matter and in not wanting to find a solution. We do not want it to happen again.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why does the government insist on not talking about the situation in committee, so that we could have all the necessary documents in place to shed some light on the current situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, very much like my colleague, it is truly an honour and a privilege to rise every day in the House to do the good work that we do as parliamentarians on all sides of the House. It is a privilege to represent my constituents when I come here, to be their strong voice in Ottawa and ensure their voices are heard. Therefore, I agree with the member on that point.

It is really important for us to have this debate today. A few members indicated that they wanted to hear more from the Liberal Party regarding the debate. It is a healthy debate to have to see if this should, in fact, be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We can have a healthy exchange and then make the decision as to whether it should go to the PROC committee.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Liberal speeches today, which tended to focus on the one line of the Speaker's ruling that said the cameras showed the media bus went through, basically an itinerary of what happened. I am glad we have that report. However, when the member for Beauce went to the place where the security people were gathered, they were on their radios talking to other people. He was told that the reason the buses were not allowed through, even though the media buses went through, was the Prime Minister's entourage of vehicles was getting ready to leave. Then they waited and waited.

That is why this needs to go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We do not disagree with the Speaker's comments, but we also understand that when there is a difference of opinion and security tells us that, we need to get into a little deeper study, and that is what the PROC committee does. That is the role of the committee.

As the member for Sarnia—Lambton suggested, votes take place here all the time. It is vital we make certain this type of action does not happen again. To me, the vehicles of the Prime Minister is not the problem of the Prime Minister's or the Liberals; it is those who would not allow the buses through so members could vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit strange when I hear members referring to what was in the report. It seems that the members opposite are always focusing on the Prime Minister's vehicles and not the media bus. Therefore, I am a bit confused as to why it is always that topic that comes up.

Again, it is truly important that members here today have a healthy debate in order to determine if the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should, in fact, study this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an honour and a privilege to stand to join the debate today. It is not exactly what I think most of us originally anticipated. Actually, I believed we would be talking about Bill C-25, a bill to modernize certain aspects of Canadian corporations, co-operatives, and the like. All the same, I am very proud to stand on behalf of the citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I have had some experience making a case to the Speaker of this chamber, asking for those views to be considered and receiving a response. Certainly, in the case of an Order Paper question, which I did not believe was answered factually or truthfully, I raised that directly with a Speaker. The Speaker came back and said that he had done a full examination of the issue. I felt it was a fair process. I felt heard, was happy to have had the opportunity, and was ready to move a motion. This was much the same as we saw this morning with the member for Milton, followed by an amendment from the member for Beauce, about their concerns with respect to the incident that happened on March 22.

Before I really get into my comments on this issue, I would like to address some of the concerns that were raised earlier, particularly by the member for Hull—Aylmer. He is perfectly capable of making those statements, as is the member for Elmwood—Transcona. It is important in a democracy that people can make their views known, and to have their constituents, as well as us, hear those words and be influenced by them.

However, before I begin to make any comments with respect to the motion or the amendment today, my comments do not undercut anyone involved. As a member of Parliament, sometimes we have to ask questions that may make others feel uncomfortable. Sometimes, as members of Parliament, we have to ask questions that may seem a little out of the box and may get a response from other people who are not necessarily happy with them.

I have complete faith in our security systems and the people who operate them. They are working within a system that is meant to protect us, not just our security but obviously to ensure Parliament can have those critical debates. However, like any system, sometimes hiccups happen. Sometimes it is a lack of training. Sometimes it is just a flood of events.

Speaking of a flood of events, I remember when the former member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, Mr. Peter Stoffer, who is a fine and very genial individual, raised a concern in this place. We had a visiting dignitary, and he felt the security was disproportionate to the need and he was stopped. I believe he stood right behind where I sit today. He was given the chance to raise the concern. Regardless of whether the privilege was found to be in order and a prima facie case was found by the Speaker, by him standing up and raising it, it not only caused a discussion within this place but also a discussion among the officials who ran the systems to ensure members of Parliament were not impeded in the active consideration of and discharge of their duties.

That member made those concerns known, and I will give my personal opinion with respect to it. I was thinking that when we had a visiting dignitary, such as a president from another country, we expected there to be issues. Therefore, people should basically decide to make changes to their schedule to ensure things would go well. Personally, that is what I do. However, having now sat on the opposition side, I saw cases in the House where, and not yourself as the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the bearer of the title of Speaker in all things spoke to us and found prima facie cases of where members of Parliament were manhandled.

Since then, I have brought forward my own question of privilege. Therefore, my awareness of these things has increased. While a Speaker may not agree with Mr. Stoffer when he sat here as a member, or a Speaker did not agree with me, it made me feel my voice was heard and that we had a chance to deliberate and to think on our duties, and that is an important part of this conversation.

Again, I walk into this place with a great deal of respect. I also wear my ID wherever I go. The simple reason is that I want to make the job for those people who handle our security as efficient as possible. Despite all that, when we have members of Parliament who are unable to come to do the one thing that no one else can do, which is to stand in our places and vote yea or nay, or to abstain, then the voices of the people back home do not count.

Therefore, regardless of party, I would hope the members of the government and all members would agree we should stop, pause, and take note of it. Some members may take note of a particular motorcade was given as an explanation to the member for Beauce. Some may focus on a media bus. Some may focus on the fact that the prima facie case brought by the Speaker is enough for this place. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say that more could be said. I am here to join that and to ensure we get as many views as possible and that when, as I really hope, this goes to PROC, my peers from parties on both sides of the House will be able to make representations, to hear witnesses.

Again, as a previous Speaker declared, and I am quoting from page 4 of the ruling, “The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable and constitutes a contempt of the House”. A contempt of the House is a very serious thing. That is why we have committees, to bring people in to have an honest accounting from the different agencies. I asked questions specifically, saying that on page 2 the Speaker specifically laid out, “In fact, I have received two reports of the incident...Based on those reports”.

Again, we have a ruling that had an overall look at it, got some initial reports in, and said that there was a prima facie case. That is not being disrespectful of the Speaker. I would suggest it is asking if there could be more than just in a four-page summary. Absolutely I believe there could be, and that is why PROC can be there. It is not up to the Speaker to get into the intricate details. It is up to his or her peers and members of Parliament at the procedural and House affairs committee to examine these. It is the Speaker's job to say that there is a prima facie case. That is how our rules work, and they work very well.

The process we have set up is a good one. As many members have remarked, so many things happen on this precinct and the people working in it all want the same things. However, when these issues come up, where the member for Milton has said that she was unable to vote, we should take that very seriously.

How seriously should we take it? We should take it very seriously. In the centre of this room on the table is the mace. The mace represents your authority, Mr. Speaker, but it also represents the protection of your authority that is garnered through all our members. When it is here, it means the protection is here and that you are going to help us to coordinate our business.

That is because in some parts of our collective history some Speakers were not respected, and I am going back again to Great Britain hundreds of years ago. When Speakers would go to a monarch and say “Here's what the people have said about taxation”, they risked being beheaded or imprisoned, simply because the monarch of the day did not want to hear what the House of Commons, as it was back then, had to say.

I would just point out that we need to have safety for individual members as well as the proper processes that we trust our Speaker with to ensure those things are respected.

We have three forms of government: the executive, obviously embodied in the Prime Minister and his cabinet; the legislative function, which we are; and the judiciary.

I will read off the back under my card, which states, “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 which the bearer is a member.” The reason why I raise this is the law. This is not just a simple privilege. This is actually law. We have the ability to say in this place that we will manage our own affairs. When members are somehow stopped through a process not of their own making, that is unreasonable, unreasonable meaning that the system or the people operating it stop them from fulfilling their functions, then it bears close examination. That is what the committee process is set up for, and I really hope government members will support that process.

There was an amendment proposed by the member for Beauce, and I will read in French:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee make this matter a priority over all other business including its review of the Standing Orders and Procedure of the House and its Committees.”

As we all know, that particular committee is seized with the issue of our rights. It is seized by the issue of how this place conducts itself. Some members on the government side do not want to hear those voices. They are not happy that the committee is seized with an issue of their own making. They are not happy that parliamentarians from various parties are standing up for those rights, not just our inherited rights but the rights that this place needs to maintain in order for those who come after us to enjoy. If those rights are not taken seriously in any place, whether it be in this House, the other chamber, or in our parliamentary committees, we have a problem.

The Liberal government says that it is all about discussion. Let us discuss members not being able to vote, things that are happening now that should not be happening. We understand that when things out of anyone's control happen, forgiveness is often given, explanations though should always be made.

Our primary responsibility is to scrutinize the spending of government, to authorize the spending of government. Supply is very important. When those concerns come up, we need to be able to deftly examine the issue and hear from the individuals responsible as well as their managers to give a proper accounting of what happened, what went wrong, what could be improved, and how this could be avoided in the future. Anything less is not taking those rights seriously.

We have heard Liberal government members say that they take this seriously. Good, let us take care of it now. Let us get this to PROC. Let us give the committee the ability to see the infringements of our rights and be able to right them. Maybe during that time some position of authority of the executive will have quiet conversations saying that they have been hearing from caucus members and opposition members, and that maybe the Liberals should change their minds on how they approach things.

Just like with Motion No. 6, maybe a little space on PROC to examine this issue would allow for some of those crucial conversations between those in authority, those who obviously have pushed to have their modernizing Parliament agenda at that committee. Maybe, like Motion No. 6, the Liberals will withdraw it, because they know that people on this side of the House are going to stand up, whether it be that inadvertently our rights were denied or whether this is a plan orchestrated to make life easier for those in power.

I believe that if we send this to PROC, perhaps those things might happen. I write to my constituents about those things, that there is a proposal to have us stop sitting on Fridays, that there is a proposal to pre-program motions so the government does not even need to move time allocation and just accepts it as being a default status quo, which is wrong. It is just as wrong as it is when members rise and say they were denied their rights to discharge.

Again, I believe that members of Parliament must be responsible. Obviously there are things that happen in day-to-day life where inadvertently those rights may be pushed, but members still have a right to come here, as Mr. Stoffer did, and to raise those concerns, and for those in positions of authority to hear the feedback from a member to make sure these things are being dealt with, that people are trained and knowledgeable about the very special institution we have.

I have no doubt that many members of the security service out there know more about the Criminal Code than I do, and I sat on the justice committee. I have no doubt. By the same token, they should also be versed in at least the basics of parliamentary procedure and our law, which again stands firm. We have the ability to make laws for how we conduct ourselves in this place. It is something that was hard fought for and maintained by your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, and through the Sergeant-at-Arms and his predecessors.

That is what I contend. I contend that this ruling is fair. I believe that had this ruling happened previously, the immediate result would have been that this would have gone to PROC right away so that the government could actually start moving forward and bring in its bills instead of getting lost in these things. However, it is interesting that we see a filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee that the government does not want to interrupt with what the member for Milton and the member for Beauce have both said is an obvious issue that needs to be dealt with.

I just want again to thank the Speaker and his staff who definitely listen, who act quietly to ascertain the facts, to hear all of our voices, whether they be with the government or not, to ensure that this place always has a space to make sure that we are able to do our jobs. I humbly submit that if we support both the amendment and the motion, this will show faith in our parliamentary system and allow us to move forward. I plead with the government to have that conversation among its members asking if the way it is proceeding is good not just for the country but for this place, and whether this will, as the Rotarians like to say, build better friendships and a more fair use of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, just prior to the member for Milton moving the motion, this is something that she said and keep in mind this is after the Speaker made the ruling. She said, “the reason we were prevented was that the supremacy of one was paramount over the supremacy of the members of Parliament going to vote. The supremacy was in one person and that was thePrime Minister.”

If we listen to the ruling of the Speaker, as I know the member did, the member knows full well that statement was made in poor judgment and that is being generous at the very least. Some might even argue that an apology would be warranted. If the member were listening to what the Speaker's ruling said, it was a fairly specific quote. One could easily draw the conclusion that the member was more interested in focusing on something outside of the privilege just by reading that quote and the words that followed which were even more condemning of the Prime Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member opposite; however, I would point out that any hon. member has the right to stand and share his or her views, to be heard, and for other members to make up their own minds based on what they have heard not just from the member who made the point, but also from others. If apologies should be made, it should be after a process of finding out what exactly went on because it may end up being the member who just spoke who might want to apologize to the member for Milton, but we will not know until there is a thorough examination of the facts, something eminently possible which hopefully will get the support of the government to occur.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my fellow British Columbian for his thoughtful discourse on the importance of this place, its rules, and its institutions because this is the people's House. Parliament serves three very important functions. We are here to represent the Canadian people, to pass good laws, but also to hold the executive to account.

To put this in the context of what is happening at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Liberals say they have the mandate to unilaterally change the rules of this place, and yet the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party collectively represent 60% of the electorate. The Liberals are trying to do this without our consent. I find it very interesting that the Liberals are suddenly so concerned about the time management at the procedure and House affairs committee that this motion cannot be put before the committee because the committee has more pressing business.

The train wreck at the procedure and House affairs committee is completely of the Liberal government's doing. The Liberals need to clearly understand the opposition is not budging on this. We stand united. We will go to the wall. We will bring banker's boxes full of material to keep speaking until the Liberals see the light.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments about the fact that the context of this mess is really of the Liberal government's own making and that it needs to be aware of the arrogance because that is the Achilles heel of every Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit when the government first proposed Motion No. 6, obviously it was of the Liberals' own making. With modernizing Parliament, they have decided to go by other means, by using a member who is on the PROC committee, and while they may deny that is what has happened, we actually heard in this place the government House leader say that she directed the committee.

It is wrong on a whole host of levels. One thing the member is completely right about is it was a situation of the making of the Liberals. Yes, opposition parties are standing with one voice as we represent the country the same as the Liberal members do. The Liberals should remember that at some point you will be on this side and I hope it is soon, but you may find what you have designed for the next generation of members of Parliament may not align with what you thought now.

I would ask Liberal members to have those conversations with their ministers and to encourage them to abandon this tack.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to questions and comments, I just want to clarify that I am sure the hon. member meant the government and not me as the Speaker when he said “you”.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am especially glad my colleague talked about the mace and the history and symbolism of it, because that might be the only new information brought to the table. I have sat here for hours listening to people rehash what happened, with zero move to take any action to prevent this from happening.

We have all agreed it is serious that two members were prevented from voting. We know we have votes imminently, even as early as next week. It seems to me that with that kind of urgency, we should be taking action. The obvious action is to put the matter before the committee so the committee can say what it is we are going to do about media buses or limousines in the future.

Would the member agree that this should immediately go to PROC, that this is a much more urgent issue than the longer-term conversation about the modernization of Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the urgency of the issue. If the government is serious about protecting members' rights where we see a prima facie case where rights were violated, whether it was inadvertent or not, it should be dealt with straight away. By doing so, perhaps the government would reconsider its current push at the procedure and House affairs committee for a wholesale change to the way the House conducts its own business.

I really hope the government is listening. I really hope that members of Parliament from all sides have those conversations with the ministers and whoever has that decision-making. Of course, I believe it centres on the Prime Minister himself to decide to change how this process is working out.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member that at the end of the day, we all have responsibilities in this chamber. With that responsibility has to come a sense that we have to be able to plan forward. When we hear the bells, we know we are supposed to come to this place in a reasonable time. We are not supposed to dilly-dally in our offices, or continue with meetings, even sometimes committee meetings. It is incumbent upon us to hear those bells and ensure our parties are aware of where we are and what we are doing so we can come to this place and exercise our privilege, our right, and our responsibility to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure but the member may have missed my initial comments. I personally wear ID. I personally plan my day. However, with the bus transportation system, I would also mention that I have seen members who have had knee operations or hip operations waiting for the buses. They oftentimes cannot be on time, especially in winter. If we go back to March 22, there was still snow outside. One occupational hazard we have in this precinct is ice.

While the member is completely correct that members must use reasonableness when they apply this privilege, by the same token, if a member is told that they are waiting for the Prime Minister's motorcade to get out of the way, is that reasonable? The member then decided to walk, and still could not get here in time to vote. Is that reasonable? I would say it is not.

We have to work these things out. There is construction going on here. There are all sorts of reasons for what it could be. However, when members start missing votes because of an unreasonable delay, and the Speaker found a prima facie case that their rights were violated, I would suggest the members were acting reasonably or the Speaker would not have us debate this. Instead, we would be properly focused on government business.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I would like to start with a little quote, “With great power comes great responsibility”. I bet members do not know who said that, but it was Uncle Ben to Spiderman, Peter Parker. That is important. Not to make light of the situation, but it is incredible that we just spent two hours debating bollards and buses and whether people were able to get here on time.

I think the Speaker has made a very good ruling that is based on many of the precedents that have been set in this chamber, and those precedents, I think, speak to the civil servants who help run the facility here, who help run our institutions, who look after our security and are very aware, and more aware now, of what they need to do to ensure that members are not impeded in coming to the House.

I would also like to say that with great privileges there comes great responsibility. When I spoke with an elder of mine, Winston Wuttunee from Red Pheasant First Nation, he talked about responsibility, the ability to respond to a situation. He told me that when he was a young child, he would have to walk long distances to school and have to plan how long it would take for him to get there. I also remember this as a young child, having to walk 2.5 miles in order to arrive at my school on time. My mum had no money for buses. She had no money for gas for the car, and we had to do this with our own two legs, and take the time to plan out the 2.5 miles and say it would take around 45 or 30 minutes to get there, so I would need to leave at a certain time.

I know there is an idea as well that we often talk about. In this case, I was able to plan into the future. I knew when I needed to be at school. In this case, sometimes votes happen inadvertently or they happen at inopportune moments, but if we remember about this vote, we have to remember that at the end of the day, this vote was caused by the members of the Conservative Party, who forced this vote—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, with apologies to my friend, I have been listening to his speech since he began. What we are debating here today is the Speaker's ruling on what took place when members of Parliament were denied access to the Hill. What the speaker found was that access was denied by circumstances beyond the members' control.

Any comments or speeches given suggesting otherwise are in fact a direct challenge of the ruling we are debating today, which is out of order for the member to do, unless he seeks to challenge the Speaker's ruling itself.

We can debate access to Parliament. We can debate the need to come together and find ways to make this place work, but inferring that the problem and the source of this was in fact the members of Parliament themselves is to challenge directly the ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is to suggest that somehow—this is important, and I do not interrupt often, as members know—that the calling of a vote, by whoever, was the source of the problem or to suggest that members of Parliament did not plan properly or that the buses being stopped from going on to the Hill with no notification whatsoever was the fault of the members of Parliament. It is in fact an attempt to justify members not gaining access to the House as if there were some sort of set of excuses that MPs were meant to anticipate, which was impossible.

The Speaker's ruling is quite clear, as you know, Mr. Speaker, since I know you have read it as well, that this is a prima facie case of privilege. That is what we are debating. If my friend from Winnipeg Centre would like to debate whether that is in fact true, then that is a challenge of the ruling itself. I hope that is not his intention, but that is clearly the way he has embarked on his speech, suggesting it is the fault of those who were denied access to the House of Commons and denied the right to vote on behalf of their constituents, which is clearly not the case.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. We will take it under advisement and bring it back, and should we have any comments to make on it, we will bring them back.

In the meantime, I will allow the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre to continue his speech to the end to see where he is going with it. I have sat in this House so many times and listened to speeches and wondered where an individual was going with this, and suddenly it all makes sense at the end, because everyone has a different way of interpreting things and bringing them back together.

Again, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and we will continue. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity and the comments from the member from Skeena, though I must say I have heard in this House, in this debate, people talking not only about parliamentary privilege but also about rules and regulations, and we have to have a bit of leeway for people to get to the argument that they would like to make at the end of the day.

I remember as a young kid having to plan for a certain time and to think about how I was going to get somewhere. I also remember when we had Barrack Obama here to give a speech. I was told by my party I had to be here three hours in advance, and I listened, and I still encountered some difficulties in getting past certain barricades throughout this city. I had a discussion with a police officer down by the Rideau Centre and he said, “You cannot go right now; we are waiting for perhaps the motorcade for the President”. We had a little discussion. We talked about parliamentary privilege and I moved through to the next barricade and at some point someone called someone and security came down and made sure I was able to get to the place where I was supposed to be so I could participate in the proceedings to listen to the President of the United States, and it was a great thing.

I am not saying that the members for Milton and Beauce were intentionally not doing something. I know they had the full intention of coming to the House to vote, and sometimes things happen. If we want, we can review again for a number of minutes and a certain period of time what exactly happened. We can read this ruling again: “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 heard from the member for Beauce that he had to get out and start walking. According to the member from Okanagan, we all have different abilities in this place, meaning some of us cannot walk as well as others: some are younger, some are a bit older, some are younger but have a knee problem. Once in a while I have a knee problem as well.

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

That is why we have buses. We just need them to run on time.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That is why we do have buses, yes. It is a good idea to have these buses.

However, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day I am also able to plan for that long-term thought about where I should be, so when I hear the bells, I try to get out. It does not mean that there has not been a case, and the Speaker has ruled conclusively on this that a case of prime facie did occur. However at the end of the day, we all have this responsibility.

For me, one of the main issues is that we are spending an awful lot of time debating something, which is very important, but there are also other issues that are far more important to be debating in this House. There is government legislation, which I am sure both the opposition members and the Canadian public would like to see us debate to ensure that the agenda that we set forth in the last election is actually put forward and implemented in a concrete way. We are delaying getting to those bills because we are spending a lot of time debating whether a bollard was in the right place and whether people knew the proper procedures. I am certain, as I have already stated, that the security staff are now fully aware, and I am sure they have always been aware of the procedures on what should be occurring.

I always find it interesting when I read the House of Commons Procedures and Practice, which we were given when we first joined the House. In fact, as part of a little ceremony, we were given the pin to indicate someone is a member of Parliament and also the fine green book, and the clerk or deputy clerk said, “Good luck; I hope you enjoy your reading.” Inside it we can find on page 110 where it talks about physical obstruction, assault, and molestation. It also talks about other examples of obstruction, interference, and intimidation.

These are all very important. A number of cases are laid out, starting on page 110, previous examples that demonstrate the types of obstruction that have occurred and what was done to prevent them from occurring in the future. For instance:

In 1999, a number of questions of privilege were raised resulting from picket lines set up by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada at strategic locations of entry to Parliament Hill and at entrances to specific buildings used by parliamentarians. One Member stated that the strikers had used physical violence and intimidation to stop him from gaining access to his office. On this matter, Speaker Parent ruled immediately that there was a prima facie case of privilege and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Other related questions of privilege focused on the difficulties some Members had had in gaining access to their offices, thus preventing them from performing their functions and meeting their obligations in a timely fashion. After consideration, Speaker Parent found that the incident constituted a prima facie case of contempt of the House and the matter was also referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In 2004, a question of privilege was raised regarding the free movement of Members within the Parliamentary Precinct during a visit by the President of the United States, George W. Bush. A number of Members complained that, in attempting to prevent protestors from gaining entrance to Parliament Hill, police had also denied certain Members access to the Parliamentary Precinct and thus prevented them from carrying out their parliamentary functions. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

These are also very serious, extremely serious, in the sense that there were instances of protesters, barricades, incidents of police actually preventing, in a sustained and enduring manner, members from accessing the House and carrying out their functions.

In the case at hand, which is also very serious, nonetheless, I am certain that the security personnel for the House of Commons, for Parliament, were not sustaining a way of preventing parliamentarians from carrying out their duties. We could create a scale. I know people love things to be black and white, but does black and white ever truly exist? Do we always have to have a great divide, whether it is on the left or the right? Is there not ever some grey, where truth has colour from both sides of a story? When I look at this case, while it is very serious, which all of them are, I think it is perhaps, on a scale, a little less serious than protesters actively preventing and obstructing members from gaining access to the parliamentary precinct in order to carry out their functions.

I have also been on a bus when a vote is occurring. I tried to get off the bus because it was stuck in traffic. I asked the bus driver to let me off, but he said he could not let me off because it was not safe. I insisted on being allowed to get off immediately and the driver still said he could not. After a bit of discussion, I said I had about five minutes to get to the vote and asked to please be allowed to get off. The driver looked around and said he would let me off—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

That is poor planning. You did not think ahead. It is poor planning.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It was, but there is traffic.

At the end of the day, I was able to find a way to get to the House and carry out my functions—

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

You made him stop in an unsafe place.