Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, I believe I should still have five minutes of questions and comments stemming from my speech prior to the interruption by the bells.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege raised by our colleague from Victoria, the NDP House leader. As one of those parliamentary keeners, I suppose I would like to add a few points on this important question of privilege. On October 10, 1989, Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding misrepresentation of Parliament's role in government communication respecting the proposed goods and services tax.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to speak on this important concurrence motion in the House. Let me begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the member for Langley—Aldergrove for raising this concurrence motion. He is a strong member of the House, and he is our critic for seniors as well.

Midwives  Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize International Day of the Midwife. Celebrated on May 5 of each year since 1992, International Day of the Midwife recognizes the hard work and care of midwives across the world. The theme for 2017, “Midwives, Mothers and Families: Partners for Life”, captures the important work and contributions midwives provide to maternal and newborn health.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for the question. He is right, the Liberal government wants to change the rules of the House to its advantage. The Liberals want to change the rules of this place for their benefit. They want to change the rules of this place to make it easier for them to do so without the nuisance of an opposition.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the Liberal government is finally agreeing to make this issue a priority. It is just unfortunate that it could only do so after a second revived Groundhog Day-type question of privilege. It would have been preferable if the government had simply agreed to the initial motion put forth by my colleagues from Milton and Beauce.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member why his government, his party, saw fit to kill the original motion on the question of privilege. It was his party, his government, that failed to see this issue initially come to a vote in the House. It was his government that launched the discussion paper that disrupted the procedure and House affairs committee for three weeks.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I would add that it was this Conservative Party that raised the question of privilege. It was this Conservative Party that moved the appropriate amendment and subamendment so this issue could take priority at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We see this as such a fundamental importance that we amended the motion to give it priority at committee.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this question of privilege which I originally raised three weeks ago. It is unfortunate that we must raise this issue today under the threat of a closure guillotine which was introduced once again by the Liberal government House leader. It hearkens to a time many decades ago, 60 years in fact, when a similar issue came before the House and closure was undertaken by a then Liberal government.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, the government House leader says that she understands the issue. She says that she supports this going to PROC, and in fact, in her response to the member for Outremont, she just said that he will have his vote. The problem is, we should have been voting on this previously, but her government shut down and killed the first question of privilege.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I think the real question is who is pulling the strings. It is the PMO. It is the PMO that is choreographing this whole thing. In fact, the deputy Liberal whip tried a procedurally flimsy method to self-direct the committee's procedure, rather than taking the time-honoured precedent of having a motion referred by this House.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns  With regard to the Access to Information Act, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many times has the Privy Council Office, the Office of the Prime Minister, or the Treasury Board Secretariat provided guidance, including directives, advices, memorandums, clarifications, and interpretations regarding Access to Information requests or the implementation of the Act; and (b) for each instance in (a), what are the details, including (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) contents, (iv) departments that received the guidance, (v) individuals who provided the guidance, (vi) relevant file numbers, if applicable?

Government Appointments  Mr. Speaker, while they dither, criminals go free. However, those are not the only vacancies going unfilled: the Chief Electoral Officer, the lobbying commissioner, the Ethics Commissioner. Now the Information Commissioner is retiring. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is under investigation by the Privacy Commissioner, the acting commissioner of lobbying, the interim Commissioner of Official Languages, and the acting Ethics Commissioner.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, my former classmate is right. The issue before us is one where the government is ramming down procedural changes to the Standing Orders of the House without the consent of the opposition. In every major case, the practice of the House is that these changes are made by consensus, by agreement of all political parties.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, we as Canadians and we as members of the House have to undertake our duties to this place, and our duties should not be done by unilaterally ramming down changes. Let us get to the real work by having a real discussion in the procedure and House affairs committee, not by having it one-sided with a guillotine motion that is directing the committee to report back by a certain date without the consensus of the opposition parties.