Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a tweet by Canada 2020 advertising that it was opening offices in the parliamentary precinct. The tweet, dated January 27, 11:47 a.m., states, @Canada2020 almost there! New floors next week - 2100 Sq ft of meeting space #canada2020 in the Parliamentary precinct #cndpoli.Section 79.51 of the Parliament of Canada Act with respect to the Parliamentary Protective Services, defines the precinct as follows: parliamentary precinct means the premises or any part of the premises, other than the constituency offices of members of Parliament, that are used by the following entities or individuals or their officers or staff, and that are designated in writing by the Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Commons: (a) the Senate, House of Commons, Library of Parliament or Parliamentary committees; (b) members of the Senate or House of Commons who are carrying out their parliamentary functions; (c) the Senate Ethics Officer or the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; or (d) the Service. On the Public Works website, it defines the parliamentary precinct as home to Canada's federal legislature and is an iconic symbol of our country's commitment to democracy and peace.As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada 2020 cannot take up shop in the home of our federal legislature, and the only commitment it can boast of is receiving largesse from the Liberal government. Apparently, it is not good enough for Canada 2020 to be an entity of the Liberal Party of Canada; it now wants to give the impression that it is part of the parliamentary precinct.My question of privilege touches on two points: one, the misrepresentation of Parliament; and two, the breach of subsection 80(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act.A prima facie case of privilege was found on May 6, 1985, when the appearance of a newspaper advertisement identified as a member of Parliament someone other than the sitting member. Canada 2020 tweeted out that it was part of the parliamentary precinct, misrepresenting itself as part of the parliamentary family. I would argue that this misrepresentation constitutes an affront to the House and to members of Parliament.In the Ontario legislature, Speaker Stockwell dealt with a question of privilege concerning a pamphlet that was issued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the government's program for reforming municipal government in metropolitan Toronto. On January 22, 1997, Speaker Stockwell ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege since the pamphlet gave the impression that passage of the required legislation was not necessary. Simply put, no one or organization, even the government itself, can misrepresent what Parliament does or who is a member of Parliament, or as Canada 2020 is attempting to do, misrepresenting its role in relation to Parliament.Further, and this is my second point in relation to the use of such references as Canada 2020 tweeted, the principle of Canada 2020's offensive tweet can also be explained in subsection 80(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act: Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder, no person shall use the words Parliament Hill in combination (a) to describe or designate a property, place, site, or location in the National Capital Region described in the schedule to the National Capital Act other than the area of ground in the City of Ottawa bounded by Wellington Street, the Rideau Canal, the Ottawa River and Kent Street; (b) to identify any goods, merchandise, wares, or articles for commercial use or sale; or (c) in association with a commercial establishment providing services. No one would be surprised if Canada 2020 advertised the opening of a new office in the Liberal Party's headquarters, for example, and as I said in my opening remarks, no one is surprised that Canada 2020 is essentially an entity of the Liberal Party, but it is an affront for Canada 2020 to be passing itself off as an entity of Parliament. It is there where it has crossed the line.Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.