I will respond in two respects. You have to look at the question in terms of parliamentary privilege or in terms of copyright. There is a decision of the Federal Court dealing with crown copyright. The argument was made about freedom of expression, and the court held that freedom of expression under the charter did not override the copyright entitlements of the holder of the copyright, which in that case was the crown.
On the question of parliamentary privilege, freedom of expression is one part of the Constitution; parliamentary privilege is another part of the Constitution, and the courts have held that one will not trump the other. So if this House were to decide that it shall, in fact, restrict freedom of expression when its material is being used in some manner that is contrary to its policy, I would think that the courts would uphold the privilege of the House to so restrict the use of their material. They are not restricting the comments someone wants to make about that material but are stricting the use of that material for purposes of comment.