Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm respectfully disagreeing with the direction of Mr. Maloney's comment.
I just remembered there's a rule when there's a violation of privilege: You have to bring the matter up at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It's not precisely defined in the Standing Orders, but the spirit of it is that you can't feel your privilege is violated, think about it for two weeks and then come back and move the issue. Privilege is supposed to have an element of urgency to it. There's something happening that is impacting the ability of members of Parliament to do their jobs. If it's an issue of privilege, it naturally follows that there's an urgency to it.
I'm going back over my memory of the privilege issues we've dealt with. One issue was that certain members were impeded in coming to the House for a vote because there were certain security protocols associated with it. I think a foreign leader was visiting. With the new security protocols, they were not able to get to the House to vote. Therefore, a privilege issue was raised because they were prevented from exercising their privilege, which is to vote. The urgency of that matter was in the fact that people were being prevented from voting, so it had to be dealt with right away. There are votes going on all the time. If you put that issue off and say, “Well, yes, people are being prevented from voting, but we'll deal with it in two months”, in the intervening time, you have the continuation of the problem, which is people being prevented from exercising their privilege.
The House, right now, is debating a question of privilege involving foreign interference. It's obviously an urgent matter because foreign interference didn't just happen once to one member at one point in time. It's an ongoing concern. There are ongoing issues that have to be resolved as soon as possible, which is why members are required to bring things forward right away. In the House, on matters of privilege, privilege overrides everything. It is unlike everything else. It even overrides private members' business.
Speaker Regan previously ruled that, if the government adjourns debate on a matter of privilege, it comes back right away. It has a unique character within the Standing Orders in that the House is necessarily seized with it until it's dealt with. I think people understand that. It's because of the urgency and importance of the matter, and because of the importance of it being dealt with right way.
I don't know whether the process for consideration of that matter is as formally structured in the rules at the committee level, but I think it's important for us to act with an appreciation of what privilege means and what the practices of the House can teach us about our practices here in committee. If the matter is urgent and necessarily overrides the other things going on, then at committee we should say it is important, it is urgent and it is impacting the privileges of members.
It's particularly impacting the privileges of members in the context of clause-by-clause consideration of a particular bill. We need to understand what happened and how it can be resolved if we're going to take seriously the resolution of that privilege matter. It has to happen in that sequence and in a way that acknowledges the operating principles we get from the House, which are urgency, primacy and the need for the privileges of members of Parliament to be protected in order for members to do their jobs. If I don't have my privilege protected, I can't do my job and properly move things forward. For this committee to function, that privilege needs to be respected. That is a precondition for all the things that have to happen next. I think the principle of the amendment is to say, yes, we need to hear from the witness right away, because we need to get towards a resolution.
Mr. Redekopp has put forward an amendment. I understand it might come forward in a separate form that deals with the privilege issue. The other issue I have in general with this motion—I support it and let's move it forward—is this: I don't see this motion directly addressing the issue of privilege. It just says we're going to hear from a witness who is going to help us enumerate some facts. It doesn't actually lay out the process for resolving the privilege issue.
That's what we're supposed to be doing. Once the important issue of privilege has been determined, the committee, just as would happen in the House, must then respond to the issue of privilege accordingly. That's the right thing to do.
That's consistent with the long-running practice and traditions of the House, but it's not just the right thing to do because it's the traditional thing. It's the right thing to do because it's what protects the ability of our institutions to function on the matter that comes next.
First we establish that we've resolved whatever considerations or issues relate to the protection of the privileges of members, and then we can build on that secure foundation of privilege being respected and recognized to go on to the next step. It seems to me that the sooner the committee is able to take those steps, the sooner the committee is able to go on to next steps, so I would encourage that kind of prioritization.
I'll leave my comments there.