It is a real testament to their professionalism that they are able to do that. We will see how much longer they have to do it.
Thank you for the opportunity to add to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill earlier.
I will not reiterate the concerns that have been raised by the article that was cited. Rather, I want to raise precedent, because it was just a little while ago that the question of privilege was raised, and it did not take me long to find some precedents that apply in this case.
I will start off with Speaker Bosley in 1986, who noted:
If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions, that he or she has been threatened, intimidated, or in any way unduly influenced, there would be a case for the Chair to consider.
As you know, prima facie means that at first glance there has been a case of instruction or intimidation of a member of Parliament. The member for Calgary Nose Hill cited very clear evidence that has come out in the public domain in that regard, with respect to both the member for Markham—Stouffville and the member for Vancouver Granville. She raised this on behalf of those members.
I want to cite three cases where members in this House have raised issues of parliamentary privilege and raised a question of privilege on behalf of other members. Therefore, the member for Calgary Nose Hill has the ability and the right to do so.