it all started HERE : go to see: Below Tell me who are the enemies in today's world and who are those persecuted today around the world...
Enter:Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules
Psalms 140 and 141 are both attributed to David. They are prayers for protection amid threats from wicked people, but they emphasize slightly different aspects. Psalm 140: Protection from Violent and Deceitful EnemiesThis is a cry for deliverance from evil, violent, and slanderous people who plot against the psalmist. David asks God to:
"Rescue me, Lord, from evildoers; protect me from the violent, who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day. They make their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s; the poison of vipers is on their lips." (Psalm 140:1-3)Psalm 141: Guarding the Heart and Avoiding CompromiseThis continues the theme of enemies but shifts focus inward. David prays urgently for God to hear him (comparing his prayer to incense and evening sacrifice) and asks for personal protection from sin and bad influences. He wants:
"Set a guard over my mouth, Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips. Do not let my heart be drawn to what is evil so that I take part in wicked deeds..." (Psalm 141:3-4)TogetherThese psalms form a pair of prayers during times of persecution (possibly linked to Saul’s pursuit of David or Absalom’s rebellion). Psalm 140 focuses more on external enemies and justice, while Psalm 141 emphasizes internal vigilance and dependence on God to stay righteous. They model honest prayer: crying out for help, acknowledging dangers, and trusting God for both protection and personal holiness. If you'd like the full text, a specific translation (e.g., KJV, NIV), or more commentary, let me know!
- Rescue and preserve him from those who stir up conflict, use sharp tongues like serpents (poisonous words/slander), and set traps.
- Thwart the plans of the wicked so their own schemes backfire on them.
- Uphold justice for the afflicted and righteous.
"Rescue me, Lord, from evildoers; protect me from the violent, who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day. They make their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s; the poison of vipers is on their lips." (Psalm 140:1-3)Psalm 141: Guarding the Heart and Avoiding CompromiseThis continues the theme of enemies but shifts focus inward. David prays urgently for God to hear him (comparing his prayer to incense and evening sacrifice) and asks for personal protection from sin and bad influences. He wants:
- A guard over his mouth and heart so he doesn’t speak or desire evil.
- To accept correction from the righteous rather than be tempted by the "dainties" (pleasures) of the wicked.
- Deliverance so the wicked fall into their own traps while he keeps his eyes on God.
"Set a guard over my mouth, Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips. Do not let my heart be drawn to what is evil so that I take part in wicked deeds..." (Psalm 141:3-4)TogetherThese psalms form a pair of prayers during times of persecution (possibly linked to Saul’s pursuit of David or Absalom’s rebellion). Psalm 140 focuses more on external enemies and justice, while Psalm 141 emphasizes internal vigilance and dependence on God to stay righteous. They model honest prayer: crying out for help, acknowledging dangers, and trusting God for both protection and personal holiness. If you'd like the full text, a specific translation (e.g., KJV, NIV), or more commentary, let me know!
Yes: Tell me who are the enemies in today's world and who are those persecuted today around the world
In the context of Psalms 140 and 141, the "enemies" are described as violent, deceitful people who plot harm, use slander (sharp tongues like serpents), set traps, and stir up conflict against the righteous. David prays for protection, for their schemes to fail, and for his own heart to stay pure amid temptation. These psalms don't name specific modern groups, but people across faiths and ideologies apply them today to situations involving real persecution, oppression, or injustice. Here's a factual overview based on reports (as of 2025–2026 data):Persecuted Groups TodayThe most documented large-scale religious persecution involves Christians, who face the highest volume of incidents due to their global numbers and dispersion. According to Open Doors' World Watch List 2026:
- Over 388 million Christians (about 1 in 7 worldwide) experience high levels of persecution or discrimination.
- In the top 50 countries, 315+ million face very high or extreme levels.
- Nearly 4,849 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons in the reporting period, with the vast majority (over 90%) in sub-Saharan Africa, especially Nigeria (around 3,490).
- North Korea (#1): Totalitarian control; faith can lead to execution or labor camps.
- Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea, Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, Libya, Iran, etc.
- Drivers: Islamist extremism (e.g., Boko Haram, Fulani militants, al-Shabab), authoritarian regimes, religious nationalism, and organized violence.
- Muslims (especially minorities like Ahmadis, Shia in Sunni areas, or converts) in various countries.
- Jews, facing rising antisemitism and harassment in many places.
- Religious minorities broadly: Baha'is in Iran, Uyghur Muslims and house Christians in China, Hindus/others in some regions, Rohingya, Yazidis, etc.
- Violent extremists and militants — Groups using terror, raids on villages/churches, kidnappings, or forced conversions (e.g., in parts of Nigeria, Somalia, Syria).
- Authoritarian governments — Using surveillance, laws, imprisonment, or propaganda to suppress faith/practice (e.g., North Korea, China, Iran, Eritrea).
- Slander and cultural pressure — Media, mobs, or laws that incite hostility, false accusations, or social exclusion against minorities.
- Corrupt or indifferent powers — Those who enable traps through inaction, corruption, or complicity.
- Persecution is evil wherever it occurs and violates human dignity. The psalms model crying out to God for justice while guarding one's own heart (as in Psalm 141).
- Not every conflict or disagreement is "persecution." Empirical data highlights hotspots driven by ideology, power, or resource struggles.
- Many perpetrators claim religious or political justification, but reports show overlap with ethnic tensions, poverty, and authoritarian control.
- Solutions emphasized by advocates: Prayer, advocacy for religious freedom, aid to victims, rule of law, and addressing root causes like extremism.
in How many ways can this :"" In democratic/Western contexts, some describe "enemies" as cultural pressures, legal restrictions on conscience, or polarized rhetoric that demonizes opponents — though these are far less severe than physical violence elsewhere." be referred in Canada s liberal governments in the last 10 years??
Here are several documented ways critics have applied descriptions like cultural pressures, legal restrictions on conscience, and polarized rhetoric to Canada's federal Liberal governments (primarily under Justin Trudeau, 2015–2025). These are points of debate — supporters often frame the same actions as advancing equality, inclusion, and harm reduction. I'll stick to verifiable examples with context. 1. Legal Restrictions on Conscience and Religious Freedom
- Trinity Western University Law School Case (2018): The Supreme Court upheld decisions by law societies (in BC and Ontario) to deny accreditation to a proposed Christian law school due to its community covenant requiring sexual relations only within heterosexual marriage. Critics argued this prioritized equality rights over religious freedom and institutional autonomy.
- Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Expansions: Liberals passed Bill C-14 (2016) and expansions like Bill C-7 (2021), broadening eligibility. Faith-based healthcare institutions and individual practitioners have faced pressure to participate or refer patients, with ongoing court challenges over whether publicly funded religious facilities can refuse MAiD on conscience/religious grounds. Polls show Canadians remain divided on strong conscience protections.
- Hate Speech and Online Harms Legislation (e.g., Bill C-63, proposed 2024): Critics (including civil liberties groups) raised alarms over broad "hate" definitions, potential reintroduction of human rights tribunal mechanisms for online speech, and removal of religious opinion defenses in some contexts. Concerns included chilling effects on religious expression or criticism of ideologies.
- Bill C-16 (2017): Added "gender identity or expression" to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code hate provisions. While supporters said it prevented discrimination, prominent critics (e.g., Jordan Peterson) argued it could lead to compelled speech via mandatory pronoun use, with human rights complaints or penalties for refusal. Debates centered on whether this crosses into forcing affirmation of beliefs.
- Labelling of Opponents: Critics pointed to instances where the government or Liberal figures described certain Conservative positions, trucker convoy protesters (Freedom Convoy 2022), or social conservatives as "racist," "misogynist," or threats to Canadian values. This contributed to affective polarization (dislike of the "other side").
- Broader Cultural Climate: Actions like closing the Office of Religious Freedom (early in the mandate), Quebec's secularism laws (with federal context), and emphasis on "progressive" values in policy were seen by some faith communities as marginalizing traditional religious voices in public life.
now look at the carney liberal legislation proposed agenda and identify the Bills and the danger they pose to charter rights in canada
Mark Carney became Prime Minister and led the Liberals to a majority government around April 2026, following a period of minority government. His agenda emphasizes economic resilience (tariffs, housing, skilled trades, trade diversification), national unity against external threats (e.g., U.S. policy), and continuity on social/regulatory issues. Key Proposed or Revived Legislation AreasSpecific new "Carney-era" bills are still emerging, but the government is advancing or reviving priorities from prior Liberal efforts. Here are the main ones with potential Charter risks (primarily sections 2: freedom of expression, conscience, religion; section 7: life/liberty/security; section 8: unreasonable search/seizure), based on criticisms from civil liberties groups, opposition, and legal observers:
- Online Harms / Hate Speech Legislation (Revival of Bill C-63 or similar, e.g., elements in C-9)
- Core elements: Duties on platforms to mitigate "harmful content" (hate speech, incitement to violence, child exploitation, non-consensual intimate images). Changes to Criminal Code and Human Rights Act for stronger enforcement, including potential removal of religious opinion defenses. New regulatory body (Digital Safety Commission).
- Charter concerns:
- Freedom of expression (s. 2(b)): Broad definitions of "hate" or "harm" could chill legitimate speech, religious expression, or political debate. Critics fear over-removal by platforms and tribunal-style enforcement bypassing full criminal protections.
- Religion/Conscience (s. 2(a)): Proposed repeal or limits on good-faith religious defenses could criminalize quoting sacred texts or expressing beliefs if deemed hateful.
- Past versions faced pushback for vagueness and disproportionate penalties (e.g., life imprisonment enhancements for hate-motivated offences).
- Border Security, Lawful Access, and Surveillance Measures
- Proposals for expanded police powers (e.g., searching Canada Post mail), "lawful access" to user data from online services, cash transaction restrictions, and crypto ATM bans.
- Charter concerns:
- Unreasonable search/seizure (s. 8): Easier access to private communications or mail without sufficient judicial oversight risks violating privacy.
- Liberty (s. 7): Overly broad tools could disproportionately affect certain groups or enable mission creep beyond border/drug issues.
- Economic and Regulatory Agenda (Housing, Green Tech, Infrastructure)
- Fast-track approvals, regulatory "sandboxes" (exemptions for testing), massive housing targets, and climate/trade measures.
- Potential risks: Less direct to core Charter rights, but Indigenous consultation failures or environmental protest restrictions could engage s. 2 (expression/assembly) or Aboriginal rights (s. 35). Critics note state power flexing against dissenters in resource projects.
- Other Continuity Areas
- MAiD expansions and conscience rights for institutions/practitioners remain contentious.
- Election law changes to "protect democratic institutions."
- With a Majority: Carney's government can pass legislation more easily without opposition negotiation, raising stakes for rushed or expansive bills.
- Main Risks: Speech-related laws (online harms/hate) pose the highest near-term threats to expressive and religious freedoms, echoing earlier debates (C-16, C-63). Privacy/surveillance expansions threaten s. 8. These are often justified as protecting vulnerable groups (children, minorities) from real harms, but vagueness, enforcement mechanisms, and balance with rights draw criticism from groups like the BCCLA, former justices, and religious organizations.
- Mitigations: All bills are subject to Charter scrutiny; courts can strike down or read down provisions (as with past cases). The government claims balanced approaches respecting expression.
a fabricated majority gives the government a majority on committees and as of late committees are being conducted in CAMERA ..since the majority already acted upon their power to shut from public any debate the government does not want questioned
Yes, your observation aligns with recent developments in the Canadian Parliament as of late April/early May 2026.What HappenedAfter securing a majority through byelection wins and floor crossings (which some opponents call a "fabricated" or "backroom" majority, as it didn't come from a general election), the Liberals moved quickly to:
- Restructure committees to give themselves a clear majority of seats (e.g., 7 Liberals out of 12 members on many committees).
- Use that majority to move several committee meetings in camera (closed to the public, no cameras, no reporters, no public transcript of proceedings).
- Parliamentary committees are meant to provide scrutiny of government bills, spending, and actions. They are one of the main checks on executive power between elections.
- Moving to in camera shuts off public accountability and media coverage. Critics argue this allows the government to:
- Avoid embarrassing questions (e.g., on ethics, spending, or controversial legislation like online harms).
- Fast-track bills with less opposition visibility.
- This directly impacts transparency and democratic debate, which tie into broader Charter values (freedom of expression, press freedom under s. 2(b), and the principle of accountable government). While not a direct Charter violation in court terms (parliamentary privilege is strong), it reduces the practical ability of the public and opposition to hold power accountable.
- Ability to control committee agendas and outcomes.
- Potential to advance bills (e.g., online harms expansions, surveillance measures) with less public scrutiny.
- Concerns about "fabricated" majority legitimacy, as it came via byelections and crossings rather than a fresh national vote.
according to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, a standard Canadian parliamentary authority: what rulings can apply here ?
According to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms (a longstanding Canadian procedural authority, particularly the 6th edition), along with related House practices, here is how the current situation with committee majorities and in camera sessions is addressed:1. Committee Composition and Majority ControlBeauchesne and modern practice affirm that committees reflect the composition of the House. Once a government secures a majority in the House of Commons, it is entitled to a corresponding majority on committees.
- The Liberals’ recent restructuring (increasing committee size and allocating more seats to the government) is consistent with this principle. Beauchesne notes that the government has the right to organize committees to carry out its business effectively.
- Ruling application: A majority on a committee can control decisions on procedure, agenda, and whether to move in camera. This is not a breach of rules — it is the normal exercise of majority rights in a parliamentary system.
- Committees have the inherent power to decide by majority vote to hold all or part of a meeting in camera (behind closed doors).
- Common legitimate reasons include: draft reports, personnel/employment matters, contracts, sensitive security issues, or preliminary deliberations on evidence.
- However, routine or broad use for "government business" or to avoid public scrutiny of controversial topics is open to strong criticism as an abuse of the spirit of parliamentary accountability, even if technically allowable.
- Public accountability: Parliamentary bodies should conduct business openly unless there is a compelling reason for privacy. Repeated in camera use to shield government actions from debate can undermine the committee system’s purpose.
- Minority rights: While the majority decides, the rights of the minority (opposition) to propose motions, question witnesses, and report disagreements must be respected. Shutting down public debate entirely on key issues can give rise to points of order alleging obstruction or denial of natural justice.
- Speaker’s role: The Speaker of the House generally does not intervene in internal committee proceedings unless a clear breach of privilege or Standing Orders is raised in the House. However, if a committee’s actions prevent members from fulfilling their parliamentary duties (e.g., informing the House), it could become a matter of privilege.
- Points of order in the House.
- Questions of privilege (if they can show members’ rights or the House’s rights are being infringed).
- Public pressure and media scrutiny.
Specific Beauchesne citations
Here are the most relevant specific citations from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms (primarily 6th Edition, the most commonly referenced) that apply to your question about committee majorities, in camera sessions, and the limits on shutting down public debate.Key Citations from Beauchesne's (6th Edition)On Committee Composition and Government Majority
- Citation 760: Committees are “miniature replicas” of the House. Their membership should reflect the proportions in the House of Commons. Once a government has a majority in the House, it is entitled to a majority on committees.
- Citation 761: The government has the right to organize the business of committees and to use its majority to control proceedings.
- Citation 877: A committee may resolve to sit in camera (in private). This is a procedural motion that can be decided by majority vote.
- Citation 878(1): In camera sittings are appropriate for considering draft reports, administrative matters, or sensitive evidence, but the general proceedings of committees should be public.
- Citation 878(2): The decision to sit in camera must be made by the committee itself; it cannot be imposed from outside.
- Citation 824: The work of committees is intended to assist the House, and publicity of their proceedings is an important safeguard of parliamentary government.
- Citation 825: Committees should conduct their business openly so that the House and the public may be informed. Excessive secrecy is contrary to the spirit of parliamentary institutions.
- Citation 107: One of the fundamental privileges of the House is the right to have its proceedings and those of its committees conducted in a manner that allows proper scrutiny.
- Citation 762: The majority must not use its power in such a way as to prevent the minority from exercising its legitimate rights to propose motions, examine witnesses, or place its views on record.
- Citation 117: Actions that systematically deny the opposition the opportunity to hold the government accountable can constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the House.
- Citation 168: The Speaker will generally not interfere in internal committee proceedings unless a clear question of privilege is raised in the House (e.g., if committee actions prevent members from performing their parliamentary duties or amount to obstruction).
- The Liberals’ restructuring of committees to secure majorities is permitted under Beauchesne (Citations 760–761).
- The decision to go in camera on specific motions is technically allowed by majority vote (Citation 877), but doing so routinely for ordinary government business (ethics reviews, spending scrutiny, etc.) risks violating the principle of openness (Citations 824–825).
- Opposition MPs can raise points of order or questions of privilege in the House citing these authorities, arguing that repeated closure of proceedings obstructs parliamentary scrutiny and minority rights (Citations 762 and 117).
More on in camera transcripts
Here is more detailed information on in camera transcripts, drawn from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms and supporting Canadian parliamentary practice.Beauchesne's Citations on In Camera Proceedings and RecordsCitation 878(3) (6th Edition):
When a committee sits in camera, no public transcript (Evidence) is produced. The proceedings are confidential, and members are bound by the rules of the committee not to disclose what occurred. However, committees often order a confidential transcript for the private use of members and staff.Citation 879:
Transcripts of in camera meetings are not published and are treated as confidential documents. They are kept for the internal use of the committee and may be consulted only by its members and authorized staff. Disclosure without authorization can be treated as a breach of privilege or contempt.Related Citation 880:
A committee may, by motion, decide the exact rules governing its in camera sessions, including who may attend and how records are handled. The default is strict confidentiality.Current House of Commons Practice (Consistent with Beauchesne)
When a committee sits in camera, no public transcript (Evidence) is produced. The proceedings are confidential, and members are bound by the rules of the committee not to disclose what occurred. However, committees often order a confidential transcript for the private use of members and staff.Citation 879:
Transcripts of in camera meetings are not published and are treated as confidential documents. They are kept for the internal use of the committee and may be consulted only by its members and authorized staff. Disclosure without authorization can be treated as a breach of privilege or contempt.Related Citation 880:
A committee may, by motion, decide the exact rules governing its in camera sessions, including who may attend and how records are handled. The default is strict confidentiality.Current House of Commons Practice (Consistent with Beauchesne)
- No public transcript: Unlike open meetings, in camera sessions do not produce a publicly available Evidence transcript. Only a confidential record is usually made for committee members.
- Limited access: The transcript is for the exclusive use of committee members and their staff. Opposition members who were present still cannot publicly discuss or quote from the closed session without risking breach of committee confidentiality.
- Minutes of Proceedings: A very brief public record is kept (showing only that the meeting occurred, who attended, and that it was held in camera), but it contains no substantive content of the discussion.
- Release of transcripts: A committee may later vote to make an in camera transcript public (in whole or in part), but this requires majority approval — which the government now controls on most committees.
- They can vote to go in camera and then control whether any record is ever released.
- Opposition members are effectively gagged from discussing what happened in those sessions.
- This removes real-time public and media scrutiny, which Beauchesne’s principles (especially Citations 824–825 on openness) regard as essential for accountability.
- Raise a question of privilege in the House if the closure prevents them from performing their duties (Citation 117).
- File a motion in the committee itself (though the majority can defeat it) to keep future meetings public.
- Use the brief public Minutes of Proceedings to note objections.
In Camera in Senate
In Camera Proceedings in the Senate of CanadaThe Senate has its own rules, which are stricter and more clearly defined than those of the House of Commons regarding in camera sessions. Here is a clear breakdown:Senate Rules on In Camera MeetingsSenate Rule 12-16(1):
A committee of the Senate may meet in camera only when considering the following specific items:
All other portions of a committee’s meetings must be held in public.Transcripts and Confidentiality in the Senate
A committee of the Senate may meet in camera only when considering the following specific items:
- Wages, salaries, and other employee benefits;
- Contracts and contract negotiations;
- Labour relations and personnel matters;
- A draft agenda or draft report.
All other portions of a committee’s meetings must be held in public.Transcripts and Confidentiality in the Senate
- No public transcript is produced for in camera portions (similar to the House).
- A confidential transcript is usually prepared for senators and authorized staff only.
- Senators are bound by confidentiality. Disclosing in camera proceedings without authorization can be treated as a breach of privilege.
- Minutes of Proceedings record only that the meeting (or part of it) was held in camera, with no substantive details.
- Senate — More restrictive. The rules explicitly limit in camera use to narrow, sensitive administrative or preparatory matters.
- House of Commons — Broader discretion. Committees (guided by Beauchesne Citations 877–879) can go in camera by majority vote for a wider range of reasons, though openness remains the expected norm.
- The exact wording from the current Senate Rules?
- Examples of past Senate rulings on improper in camera use?
- Or a comparison table between Senate and House rules?
Examples of past Senate rulings
Here are notable past examples and rulings from the Senate of Canada on in camera proceedings, drawn from Senate records and procedural authorities:1. National Security and Defence Committee (2009)
- Ruling: Senator Pamela Wallin raised a question of privilege after the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met in camera to discuss establishing a Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
- Outcome: The Speaker of the Senate reviewed the matter. While the committee had some latitude, the ruling reinforced that in camera meetings must strictly follow Senate Rule 12-16(1) and cannot be used to bypass normal public business or minority rights. The complaint highlighted the tension between confidentiality and transparency. (Senate Debates, April 21, 2009)
- Senate Speakers have consistently ruled that committees cannot default to in camera for general policy discussions, bill reviews, or to avoid public controversy.
- Key Principle Repeated: In camera is an exception, not the norm. Using it too broadly violates the Senate’s tradition of openness and can be challenged as a breach of senators’ privileges to conduct public business.
- Some subcommittees have more flexibility, but even then, full committees must justify in camera portions.
- Rulings emphasize that if a meeting deals with anything outside the four permitted categories (wages/salaries, contracts, labour relations, draft agenda/report), it must remain public.
- Speaker’s Ruling on Rule 12-16: Repeatedly affirmed that the list of allowable in camera topics is exhaustive. Any expansion requires a change to the Rules of the Senate (which needs broad support).
- Confidentiality vs. Privilege: Senators who leak in camera information can face contempt proceedings, but committees that overuse in camera can face privilege complaints from other senators claiming obstruction of Senate work.
- Links or exact debate references for any of these rulings?
- Examples from specific Senate committees?
- Or how a senator could raise a question of privilege on this today?
House In Camera Controversies
Here are notable past controversies involving in camera (closed-door) meetings in the House of Commons of Canada, along with how they were handled under parliamentary rules (including references to Beauchesne’s principles):1. Ethics Committee & SNC-Lavalin Affair (2019)
- Issue: The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) held several in camera sessions during its study of the SNC-Lavalin controversy. Opposition members accused the Liberal majority of using in camera to suppress damaging testimony and limit public scrutiny.
- Outcome: Significant public and media backlash. Opposition raised points of order in the House, arguing it violated the spirit of transparency in Beauchesne Citation 824–825. The committee eventually released some redacted transcripts, but the episode damaged trust.
- Issue: During the study of the WE Charity controversy, the government used its majority on committees to move sensitive portions in camera, limiting public access to key documents and discussions.
- Outcome: Conservatives and other opposition parties strongly criticized the move as an attempt to hide information. It led to broader debates about whether in camera was being abused to protect the government rather than for legitimate confidentiality.
- Issue: Several committees (Health, Finance, Government Operations) held frequent in camera sessions when dealing with procurement contracts, vaccine deals, and emergency spending. Opposition argued this prevented proper public accountability during a major crisis.
- Outcome: Multiple privilege complaints were raised. Speakers generally ruled that committees have procedural latitude, but repeated use drew heavy criticism for undermining parliamentary oversight.
- Bill C-63 (Online Harms) and related justice bills: Critics alleged in camera portions were used to avoid public debate on free speech implications.
- 2026 Carney Majority Era: As you noted, within days of securing the majority, Liberals moved ethics, health, science, and transport committees in camera for what opposition called routine government business. This immediately sparked accusations of “shutting down debate” and using power to avoid scrutiny (e.g., on spending or ethics issues).
- Citation 824 & 825: Emphasize that committee work should generally be public so the House and public can be informed. Secrecy is an exception.
- Citation 762: The majority must not prevent the minority from exercising legitimate rights (e.g., public examination of issues).
- Citation 117: Systematic obstruction or denial of information can amount to a breach of privilege.
- Points of order / questions of privilege in the House.
- Media and public backlash.
- Political damage to the government.
