Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me speak. I will be brief, but I do feel I should lay out the precedent briefly, and then my rationale for doing so.
I believe that the precedent I outlined with regard to laying it out on behalf of another member does apply in this matter, but I will refer you to page 198 of the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, which tells of an incident far back in our country's history when the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who had made threats against a member.
Similarly, on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux at page 6709 of Debates stated that he had no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibility as a member of the House free from threats and attempts at intimidation.
On February 6, 1984, the member for Peace River rose on a similar question of privilege regarding Canada Post, and the Speaker did rule in favour of this member.
On March 24, 1994, Speaker Parent described the seriousness of intimidation in a very serious way.
I encourage all colleagues to enlighten themselves on this matter, and again I would refer to the May 2016 ruling in which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled in favour of the former member for YorkâSimcoe.
Finally, I will speak to the severity and impact of this situation.
Parliament has gone to great lengths to create a policy to prevent workplace harassment here on the Hill. What message are we sending about the legitimacy or efficacy of that legislation and process if we as members are to be prevented from voting by pressure exerted by our peers or by party leadership? What message does this send about our seriousness to make Parliament a place that is friendly for women?
Mr. Speaker, if a prima facie case of privilege can be found by you in a case as benign as a member being delayed to vote by the position of a parliamentary bus, as has been found in the past, then surely allegations of a culture of intimidation being levelled against members currently under a gag order by the Prime Minister, to the point where they feel that they might not be able to vote, should give us all, but especially you, cause for concern.
This is not a matter to be taken lightly. If these allegations are true, tens of thousands of Canadians have been robbed of having their voices heard in these votes, and Parliament has shown exactly how it treats women when it requires action beyond pretty speeches and photo opportunities to get things done on behalf of gender equality.
The legitimacy of our democratic institutions rests in our ability to protect them. The equality of women is not something that can be assumed or taken for granted. Both must be fought for.
Mr. Speaker, it is in this context that I say that you should find this to be a prima facie question of privilege and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.