Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, who raised, on September 15, the question of privilege respecting an allegation of obstruction and intimidation when accessing a federal penitentiary.
With respect to the member raising this point of order, there is no clear and necessary connection between his parliamentary work and his visit to the penitentiary. The member was allowed to enter the premise and to tour the facility. I regret to hear that the member alleges he was not treated with the level of respect he expected. That is unfortunate, but the point stands that the member was given access to the penitentiary and was able to tour the facility.
It would be a completely different situation if it had been in the course of a study agreed to by the Standing Committee on Public Safety, to visit certain penitentiaries to inform members in the course of their parliamentary study. If that were the case, if members were refused entrance by an official and were threatened not to return, the members of the committee could raise an argument of intimidation and obstruction. That is not the case here. I would further suggest that there are likely protocols in place in these institutions to escort visitors when touring the facility.
Lastly, the member is correct in citing that “The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective [responsibility].”
This visit was not specifically sanctioned by the House. The member was given access to the institution in question and was accompanied on his tour of the facility. I can see no other source of intimidation or obstruction in this matter, so in my opinion, this does not meet the threshold of constituting a question of privilege.