6887","static/chunks/6887-ccdfe176d8e60771.js","2958","static/chunks/2958-5bde9c6d896654a5.js","793","static/chunks/793-d1eb689d9edee967.js","5521","static/chunks/app/politicians/statements/%5Bid%5D/page-7e0f3867022802a1.js"],"Divider"] 45:T792,

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 Once the member became aware of that, the question of privilege was withdrawn.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

Tom Lukiwski

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)