Tom Lukiwski

[Privilege, May 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, just a quick response to my hon. colleague's comments. I wish to make two points.

First, the government does not investigate questions of privilege. We merely want to try to get to the facts. I think all members would agree that the facts in a case of privilege are what really matter here.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the member of the official opposition raised a question of privilege at one time, only a few weeks ago. When the facts were finally uncovered, that member withdrew his question of privilege because the facts contained information of which the member was not aware. Once the member became aware of that, the question of privilege was withdrawn. It is important to get the facts straight.

Second, I would again point out, for the third time now, to the opposition House leader, despite his protestations that the force, the RCMP, has always had responsibility for security on the grounds of Parliament Hill. The official opposition House leader seems to infer that the changes made to security protocols in this place and on our grounds have sometimes, somehow, been altered, with respect to who is responsible for security on the Hill. The RCMP has always been responsible, and continues to this day to be responsible, for security on the grounds of Parliament Hill. There is no change. The government did not ram any changes through. I wish that my opposition House leader colleague could finally understand that very basic and simple point.

[Privilege, May 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on Friday afternoon last by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

As the honourable member for Northumberland—Quinte West indicated, our side wanted to look into these allegations before offering a response. I am prepared to offer such a response now.

The assistant of another one of my Conservative colleagues was standing among the group on the sidewalk which the honourable member for Toronto—Danforth referenced. I understand that the staff member confirms the sequence of events recounted by the honourable member, including his admission that the delay was less than a minute. Additionally, she was able to indicate, given that she was in the process of leaving the Centre Block, that she saw the honourable member “walking with purpose” toward the delay. While I do not doubt the honourable member's statement that he was on his way to the House of Commons, it sounds like it may have been an effort to “hurry up and wait”, to borrow a phrase.

Similarly, I understand that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police take no exception to the sequence of events expressed by the honourable member. They acknowledge that he was briefly delayed, for the purpose of traffic control, in a scenario consistent with the experience of the honourable member for Acadie—Bathurst last autumn. For the same reasons the government House leader expressed last Monday in relation to the question of privilege of the honourable member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and on the strength of the same precedents cited on that occasion, I would ask that you also find no prima facie case in the present circumstances.

While I will follow the lead of the honourable member for Toronto—Danforth in not repeating the citations used in the previous matter for which the Chair is currently seized, I do want to make three observations.

First, as I indicated, I was advised that this related to traffic control related to the movement of the motorcade of the President of the Philippines. The Procedure and House Affairs Committee recently reported on the complaint related to the motorcade of the President of Germany. The Chair has already heard the government House leader's arguments on that report, with which I would associate myself. The honourable member for Toronto—Danforth and I will simply to have to agree to disagree about what conclusions any reasonable observer may draw from that report.

Second, this incident is not dissimilar to the 1970 incident, referenced last week, when momentary delays were incurred at the time of an arrival or a departure of a visiting dignitary.

Third, the honourable member for Toronto—Danforth indicated that the member of the force said that her orders had equal application to every person. You will recall that a real point of consternation for the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, in its report on the visit of President Bush, was the seemingly selective nature of security barriers, with members being held back while some non-members were allowed to pass. That is not the case here.

Last Monday, the government House leader offered a reductio ad absurdum about what could eventually happen here. Given the report of the honourable member “walking with purpose” toward the delay, I really have to wonder if it is not that far away.

What is more is that I would observe that he waited until after the debate on the NDP's opposition day motion had concluded before rising on his question of privilege. Given the timing of the incident, the honourable member could have easily given the hour's notice required by Standing Order 48, and made his intervention after routine proceedings.

Before concluding, I simply cannot let the remarks of the House leader of the official opposition pass without any reply. Ever since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police succeeded the Dominion force in 1920, that force has had responsibility for the security of the grounds of Parliament Hill. That was the case last decade, last year and it certainly was last week as well. The NDP House leader had to be reminded of this point last Monday, and I remind him of it again now.

In closing, we do not believe this case warrants your finding of a prima facie case of privilege.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 8th, 2015]

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

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1122, 1124, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1130 and 1134 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1123 and 1129.

[Government Response to Petitions, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to five petitions.

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the member opposite is referring to, but if I did use any unparliamentary language, I unreservedly apologize. Of course, any reaction from my side was prompted by the antics of the member opposite, who continuously during question period keeps talking and interrupting speakers from our side.

If I did react inappropriately, I certainly apologize.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I would point out to my hon. colleague that some of the previous speakers on the NDP benches have been talking of issues not specifically about the removal of GST from feminine hygiene products. I heard comments about income inequality, for example.

If the member wants to suggest that only our side is straying from the topic, he should listen to some of the comments by members of his party. I think the comments by our member are perfectly acceptable. They are framing this debate in context. I would suggest to my hon. friend that if he wants to make a complaint about veering off topic, he talk to some of his own members.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 7th, 2015]

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

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 1120 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.