Debates of April 6th, 2017

Question No. 880

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

With regard to infrastructure spending: since the 2016 budget was tabled, what infrastructure projects for post-secondary institutions in Quebec have received funding, broken down by (i) riding, (ii) funding program, (iii) total project budget, (iv) amount of federal funding, in dollars and as a percentage of the total project budget, (v) the date of the announcement?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 881

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

With regard to the Prime Minister’s youth council: (a) what is the mandate of the Council; (b) how many times has the Council met since it was first established, and how long has each meeting lasted; (c) how many times has the Council met with the Prime Minister and for how long; (d) what stakeholders have met with the Council, including (i) ministers, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) government officials, (iv) organizations, (v) businesses; (e) what has the Council’s budget been since it was first established, broken down by year; (f) what topics have been discussed during the Council’s meetings; and (g) have the Council members signed a confidentiality clause and, if so, (i) what type, (ii) what are the details?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 882

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

With regard to travel expenses for departmental employees between November 5, 2015, and February 16, 2017, what was: (a) all extended travel pay, broken down by (i) amount spent, (ii) department (iii) branch or sector, (iv) staff title; and (b) all “weekend travel home” pay, broken down by (i) amount spent, (ii) department, (iii) branch or sector, (iv) staff title?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 884

[MacKenzie, Oxford]

With regard to materials prepared regarding Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination: for every briefing document prepared, (i) what is the date on the document, (ii) who was the sender, (iii) who was the recipient, (iv) what is the title or subject matter of the document, (v) what is the department’s internal tracking number?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 885

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

With regard to the rules used to define active versus passive income for purposes of the small business deduction: (a) when was the review of the rules, which was originally started in Budget 2015, completed and if the review was not completed (i) when did the government decide to discontinue the review, (ii) what were the reasons for the discontinuation of the review; (b) prior to the discontinuation or completion of the review in (a), were any consultations or analyses undertaken by the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance and, if so, what were (i) the results, (ii) the date of each consultation, (iii) the location of each consultation, (iv) the name and title of individuals or groups consulted, (v) the recommendations that were made to the Ministers; (c) when was the decision made to change the interpretation of rules, which was issued through a bulletin by the Canada Revenue Agency on August 23, 2016, and by whom was the decision made; (d) prior to the issue of the bulletin in (c), were any consultations or analyses undertaken by the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance; and (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, what were (i) the results, (ii) the date of each consultation, (iii) the location of each consultation, (iv) the name and title of individuals or groups consulted, (v) the recommendations that were made to the Ministers?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 886

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

With regard to the use of mefloquine by members of the Canadian Armed Forces as an anti-malaria drug as directed by the Minister of National Defence: (a) how many Canadian Armed Forces members have been given mefloquine annually in each of the years since mefloquine was first used by the Canadian Armed Forces in 1993; (b) what other anti-malaria drugs has the Canadian Armed Forces administered to forces members; (c) what year did the Canadian Armed Forces change the use of mefloquine from mandatory to optional for Canadian Armed Forces members; (d) how many members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been returned to Canada from deployment for not taking or refusing mefloquine; and (e) how many Canadian Armed Forces members were refused deployment to a mission for refusing to take mefloquine?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Distribution of budget — Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2017, by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent concerning the advance distribution in the House of the Minister of Finance’s budget presentation documents.

I would like to thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for having raised the matter in the House, as well as the members for Victoria, Flamborough—Glanbrook, Carleton, and Banff—Airdrie for their comments.

In raising the matter, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent contended that an unacceptable breach of privilege had occurred when copies of the budget presentation were distributed to government members only, while a vote was taking place in the House, in advance of the Minister of Finance’s budget presentation. This, he claimed, provided government members with privileged access to confidential budget information.

As members may recall, what transpired in the House on March 22, the day of the budget presentation, was rather exceptional in procedural terms in that an unexpected recorded division was under way at the time the Minister of Finance was scheduled to commence his speech. It was in this context that the pages, who earlier in the day had been given instructions to begin distribution at 4 p.m., began distributing some copies of the budget document during the vote, rather than just before the Minister of Finance rose, as is the usual practice. Thus, while the documents should not have been distributed during the vote, and the distribution was stopped as soon as I was aware that it was happening, this was a purely administrative error, which, unfortunately, gave some government members premature, albeit momentary, access to the budget documents.

It is our practice that information contained in the budget is kept secret until the Minister of Finance stands in the House to deliver the budget speech. However, it is also the practice that closed-door informal sessions are held by the Department of Finance prior to the budget presentation in the House of Commons—lock-ups as they are commonly known. These lock-ups have long played a role in the way parliamentary business is conducted, allowing members, as well as the media, advance access to sensitive information contained in the budget so they can be prepared to respond to questions once it has been made public. However, parliamentary convention also states that members should refrain from divulging that protected information prior to it being made public by the Minister of Finance later that day. There is no evidence that those members to whom the budget documents were inadvertently distributed on March 22 divulged their contents in any way.

The issue then is whether, in this case, the premature, even if short-lived, access of some members to budgetary information constituted a breach of members' privileges, thereby impeding them in the performance of their parliamentary functions. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 894:

...Speakers of the Canadian House have maintained that secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention, rather than one of privilege.

In the past, Speakers have had cause to address this very relationship between parliamentary convention and privilege. On November 18, 1981, at page 12898 of the Debates, Speaker Sauvé stated:

… a breach of budget secrecy cannot be dealt with as a matter of privilege. It might constitute a very important grievance for members. Such action might have a very negative impact on business or on the stock market. It might cause some people to receive revenues which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain. All of these are possible consequences of breaches of budget secrecy, but they have no impact on the privileges of the member. They might do harm—irrevocable in some cases—to persons or institutions, but this has nothing to do with privilege.

For his part, Speaker Fraser ruled on June 18, 1987, at page 7315 of the Debates that:

Budgetary secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention. Its purpose is to prevent anybody from gaining a private advantage by reason of obtaining advance budgetary information.

The limits of parliamentary privilege are very narrow and it is not a responsibility of the Chair to rule as to whether or not a parliamentary convention is justified, or whether or not the matter complained of is a breach of that convention. That is a matter of political debate and not one in which the Chair would wish to become involved.

Although, as Speaker Fraser surmised, it is not for the Chair to pass judgment on the appropriateness of a parliamentary convention, as Speaker, I continue to shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that members are in no way prevented from carrying out their parliamentary functions. In response to a question of privilege raised about the premature disclosure of information contained in the main estimates, Speaker Milliken reminded members in his ruling of March 22, 2011, which can be found at page 9113 of the Debates that:

… in such instances when there is a transgression of [a] well-established practice, the Chair must ascertain whether, as a result, the member was impeded in the performance of parliamentary duties.

While, in the case before us, there may be a grievance, there has been no evidence suggesting that any member was unable to perform his or her parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a prima facie case of privilege.

Before I conclude, please let me take a moment to state how thankful I am, and I am sure we all are, for the continued professionalism of the House of Commons pages. They do extraordinary work in serving all members of this House, and for this they deserve our support and gratitude and obviously have it.

I thank all honourable members for their attention.

Access to House of Commons—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2017, by the member for Milton regarding delayed access to the parliamentary precinct.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter, as well as the members for Beauce, Perth—Wellington, and Hamilton Centre for their comments.

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.

As Speaker, it is my role 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 of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct which ensures that members are able to discharge their responsibilities as elected representatives. I take my role in this regard very seriously. That is why upon hearing the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Milton I stated that I would obtain a report into what occurred.

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 report was received from the acting director of the Parliamentary Protective Service.

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.

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. As members will know, it was around this time that a vote was commencing in the House.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, on page 110, states:

Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.

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 that Parliamentary Protective Service staff are always alert to changing circumstances in this regard.

-–This was stressed as long ago as 2004, when, in its 21st report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated:

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.

As my predecessor stated on March 15, 2012, at page 6333 of Debates:

...the implementation of security measures cannot override the right of Members to unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, free from obstruction or interference.

Obviously these kinds of incidents, which have given rise to the issue now before us, have been all too frequent. It is for this reason that my predecessor stated on May 12, 2015, at page 13,760 of Debates that protective personnel:

...need to know the community they serve. They need to be sensitive and responsive to the community they serve, and they need to be familiar with the expectations of the community they serve. This includes having the primary function of this place top of mind as they go about performing their duties.

Clearly there was a failure in that regard on this occasion.

It is precisely to prevent the recurrence of events like that of March 22nd that some months ago I asked the director of the Parliamentary Protective Service, as one of his annual objectives, to provide mandatory training on an ongoing basis for all members of the service on the privileges, rights, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons, including unfettered access of members of the House of Commons to the parliamentary precinct.

The Chair has every confidence that the leadership of the Parliamentary Protective Service will be able to achieve this important understanding of the parliamentary community they serve by availing themselves of all opportunities available for relevant training, including those previously offered by the procedural staff of the House.

In the meantime, given the evidence that members were impeded in the fulfilment of their parliamentary duties and in view of the guidance provided by precedents, the Chair can only conclude that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege. I now invite the member for Milton to move the appropriate motion.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

moved:

That the question of privilege regarding the free movement of Members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct raised on Wednesday, March 22, 2017 be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member of Parliament for Beauce on this topic.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your thoughtful ruling.

I do appreciate the time that the Parliamentary Protective Service puts in to making sure that our privileges, our rights, and our duties are supported in this place. I also want to thank those who provide the transport around the precinct, who I know were not at fault for what ended up happening. As I said, I truly appreciate the work they do every day to allow us to do the work we do every day here in this House on behalf of Canadians.

I thought I would give the House a bit of an idea from my perspective of what happened and why I felt so strongly in making sure that I rose on a point of personal privilege that day. As was noted in your reports, Mr. Speaker, I did arrive in time to be able to come to the Hill and, as expected, I waited for the transport to arrive. The frustrating part about it was that the transport was right there and I could see it waiting to come through security in order to bring us to the Hill. I made small talk with people at the bus shelter, including my colleague, the member of Parliament for Beauce. We waited patiently as the media bus proceeded to the Hill.

After a long period of waiting, when we realized that time was passing and the security bollard was not opening, my colleague from Beauce went over to inquire as to why the buses were not being released. The reason given was that security was waiting for the empty motorcade of the Prime Minister to vacate the precinct before we were allowed to go to the House to vote.

As I said, we could see the bus from where we were. We could see four or five officers who were in the area. If they had people on the bus who were members of Parliament, I was unaware, but now I understand they did. Indeed they would have seen us waiting at the bus shelter. They would have known that those waiting were members of Parliament, yet they did not know whether there were other members who were scattered among the different stops along the way to be brought to the House. Every expectation I had was that the bus would approach, that we would get on it, and we would be able to proceed to the House in order to vote.

One thing I do know about the scheduling of buses during a vote is that all efforts are taken to ensure that the system of timing is such so that members at the last minute, sometimes with one or two minutes to go, are not left stranded at their offices in any of the buildings around the precinct. As a result, careful thought is given to making sure that those last-minute buses in the six, five, and four minutes left in the ringing of the bells make it to the House in time so that members can discharge their parliamentary obligations and duties on behalf of Canadians. However, that did not happen in that case. In fact, I am very distressed to understand that it was not a single bus or even two buses, that it was three buses that were held up for nine minutes preventing members from going to vote. 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 the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau once famously said that 50 yards off the Hill, MPs are nobodies. Unfortunately, that type of arrogance seems to have bled into his son, the current Prime Minister, in terms of how he approaches issues. It is an incredibly arrogant statement and it is one that we reflect on a lot when we discharge our duties, because as members of Parliament we do not feel that way at all. It is unfortunate that the singular importance of that day during the budget had to do with whether or not the empty motorcade of the Prime Minister came off the Hill as opposed to members of Parliament coming into the House of Commons to vote. Indeed, it trumped what was, as you said, Mr. Speaker, our abilities to discharge our parliamentary responsibilities to Canadians.

We need to understand two things. First, was this done by actual order? If it was, who made the order and how was that order made, because it was a serious matter, one that you have expressed, Mr. Speaker. The second is whether this is something of an interpretation of the people who serve on the Hill that one group or one individual is far more important than the other. I do think that this is very indicative and very problematic.

Currently we have a discussion happening in PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee, with respect to the Prime Minister's and the government's desire to ensure that the members of Parliament's duties, privileges, and responsibilities are curtailed. Lots is said and lots is written about the importance of tradition and rules and what we do here in this House and the precedents that are set. It is incredibly important that we stop once in a while to be assured and to ensure that what we are doing here is respected.

The fact is that a number of MPs were prohibited from voting on a day when the budget was being presented in the House of Commons. The fact is the Prime Minister has, through his ministers, put forth a document that seriously curtails the ability of MPs to fulfill their duties. I do not think that this is an isolated incident, and I do worry that the tone of the government being set is such that MPs are no longer important either in this place or in what we have to say in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and I support that this matter be referred to the appropriate committee so that the committee can undertake a study to determine through your two reports that I hope will be tabled, exactly what happened, who proceeded in making the decision to stop the MPs from getting on the Hill, and whether or not there was an implicit order or whether or not there was just tone being followed with respect to this matter. I am sure that my colleague, the member for Beauce, will also speak to the issue and the importance of it to his parliamentary privilege.

I greatly appreciate the time that has been put into ensuring that this was duly studied and appropriately thought through and that the time and effort of those who did the investigation did it in a timely fashion so that we could get to the facts of the matter. However, the facts are now known and what we need to understand more importantly now is the intention and the tone under which this Parliament seems to be operating that leads to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is paramount and supreme over the rest of us sitting here taking our seats in the House of Commons. Obviously, I reject that notion. I think that all members of Parliament in this place are incredibly important in how they represent their communities and their views, be they on the government backbench or in opposition.

I believe we should take pause to not just bat away complaints of the opposition on matters that are extremely important such as long-standing rules, long-standing conventions, agreements that we want to change things in this place, that we do so in concurrence with one another as opposed to having one side determine which path we are going to be following well into the future in terms of rules in the House.

I understand that the committee I am seeking this matter be referred to is undergoing a bit of a filibuster. I applaud my colleagues who are doing that, because they are making the point there that I am making here. It is unacceptable for a government to contemplate and think it is supreme above each and every member of Parliament that sits here, and if that arrogance is what is infiltrating the decision-making in this place by those who are serving us, then we need to throw some light on it and ensure that it does not continue, because it is completely unacceptable.

Unfortunately, my colleague from Beauce and I were both caught up in the moment where we were not allowed to be able to vote in the House. Some would say that is just a small infraction, but I would submit it is not. It is absolutely grave. We had our intention. We wanted to come to the Hill. We wanted to exercise our franchise on behalf of our constituents, and we were unable to do so because some individual, some person, we do not know yet, decided that was not going to happen because the Prime Minister's motorcade, which was empty, and the convenience of having it in one place or another took precedence over the duties and the responsibilities of a duly elected member of Parliament.

It is absolutely shameful. The committee deserves to study it, and we deserve to have a report back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am disappointed in the person who is a leadership candidate for the Conservative Party to try to take such an important issue of a question of privilege and try to make it political in the sense that she has chosen to try to blame the Prime Minister's motorcade.

Mr. Speaker, if the member was listening to your ruling, you were very clear in terms of why it has been ruled as prima facie, why it is that the motion was moved. It had nothing to do with the Prime Minister, not to mention other comments that the member has put on the record.

I would ask the would-be leader of the Conservative Party, does she not recognize that privilege is a very serious issue inside this chamber, that one does not have to be a member of the opposition to recognize it? Even we within government recognize it and treat it very seriously.

I sat on PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee, where we had to deal with this very serious issue in the past. We on this side of the House recognize it for what it is and it is a very serious issue. We do not believe that attempting to politicize it, as the member across the way has done, is in the best interests of moving forward.

Why does she choose to blame the Prime Minister's motorcade when within the Speaker's ruling there is no reference to it? It is about the media bus.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege of reading the two documents to which you referred, so I do not know whether or not it is in there. However, I can tell the member that my colleague from Beauce did approach and ask why we were being impeded. The fact of the matter, not the interpretation, is that the member was told by the security service that we were being impeded because of the Prime Minister's motorcade.

Is the member calling the member of Parliament for Beauce a liar? Is this what he is trying to say on the floor of the House of Commons? If he is, I invite you to go outside and say exactly that same thing, and we are going to see—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just want to remind the member to address her comments to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Madam Speaker, I suppose part of this requires some translation, if I can use that word, for Canadians watching, as to why this could be so important to members of Parliament trying to access the Hill and cast their vote on behalf of their constituents. This scenario did not have any massive ramifications on the government standing or falling or a budget passing or not, but the principle is the question of rights of members of Parliament and the rights of our constituents to have their voices heard on matters of the day.

The question is regarding what caused this problem. This is a difficult balance, as my friend alluded to in her comments, between access not just for members of Parliament but for the public as well, and the security that we must maintain in this place. My colleague from Milton was right to give credit to the security service and the staff for doing the job that they do.

We just watched an attempt by a Liberal member to say that it was this and not that, when we have clear evidence given by the member for Beauce as to why this impeding happened. Is the proper forum for dialogue on this not at a committee? That is where we can bring forward the security services. We can hear from the member for Beauce and the member for Milton and put the facts on the table to understand what the problem is. One could imagine a scenario in the future where a certain prime minister would not want a certain group of members of Parliament to vote and simply makes sure the motorcade hits at a certain time so that the gates are closed. Is a committee not the best place for this conversation to take place?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the interpretation of what I was trying to say.

As was indicated in my original intervention on March 22, wherein I gave the reason that we were impeded from the Hill as the first point of evidence, that indeed it was the Prime Minister's motorcade, the empty one, having precedence over our approach to the Hill. It is a very flimsy excuse and as such one would worry going forward as to what kinds of excuses could be given in order to ensure certain members of Parliament of any stripe did not come onto the Hill or fulfill their duties as a member.

The reason I brought up the quote from former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau is that it goes to the point of our being viewed as nothing. The reality is we are somebody when we sit in the House, and we are somebody when we represent our constituents in our home ridings, and we should be treated as such. We should not have the precedent of some individual making an erroneous call that an empty motorcade of the Prime Minister is actually paramount and supreme over the voting obligations of members of Parliament.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to endorse everything my colleague from Milton said. She is absolutely right. I was with her when I was forced to wait an unreasonably long period of time because we were denied access to Parliament Hill and prevented from exercising our democratic right to vote on a bill and represent our constituents well. It was important to me to be here.

The facts outlined in the Speaker's ruling are absolutely true. We were forced to wait nine minutes. I went to see a security officer to ask what was going on because the clock was ticking and we wanted to be in the House of Commons to exercise our right to vote.

The first officer was not well informed and asked for information. Initially, we were told that we had to wait for the Prime Minister's motorcade, which was empty. Others told us that it was because of the media bus. There was some confusion at the security gate, and because it was taking too long, we decided to proceed quickly on foot to the House of Commons to exercise our right to vote.

As everyone knows, we were not able to exercise our right to vote, so I am very pleased with the Chair's ruling, which confirms the comments of my colleague from Milton and my own. This is important not only to us, but to all members of the House. Parliamentary privilege exists so that we can represent our constituents, our reason for being here, and vote.

I am not proud of what has been happening in the House for the past few weeks; certain parliamentary traditions and customs are not being respected. The Prime Minister is not always present during question period, and yet being able to ask the Prime Minister questions is another aspect of parliamentary privilege.

This shows a degree of arrogance that is inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. He said he wanted to bring a new tone to the House of Commons, but this new tone has not been positive, as we are experiencing today.

One only needs to look at what is happening in our parliamentary committees, where the government wants to limit my colleagues' right to speak. This does not respect the British parliamentary tradition. I hope we can come back to this and look at what is happening here in Parliament.

Why are parliamentary privilege and parliamentary traditions being flouted? We need to have this debate at committee. This is important to me and my colleagues in the official opposition, as I imagine it is for the members of all opposition parties. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this matter.

I would now like to move an amendment to the proposal brought forward by my colleague from Milton. I move, seconded by the member for Oxford:

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.”

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat curious about the Conservative Party's approach to dealing with the serious issue of privilege. We have always believed, whether it was in opposition or in government, that members need to have unfettered access to the House of Commons. We recognize the value and importance of the vote and of participating in debate. We see that, and I will get the opportunity to go over exactly what the Speaker said.

What we know the Speaker did not say was that it had anything at all to do with a prime ministerial motorcade, yet the opposition wants to focus the debate on the Prime Minister. They seem to be more focused on that than on the actual privilege.

I am sure at least one of the members listened attentively to the ruling the Speaker made, and throughout the ruling no reference was made to the Prime Minister. The reference was to the media bus, and that is what the question of privilege is all about.

Did the member across the way listen to what the Speaker's ruling was on the question of privilege? If he did, could he please provide any comment whatsoever with respect to the relevancy of the media bus?