Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This concerns the permissibility of some of my amendments to Bill C-20 at report stage, which I submitted this week to the Journals Branch.
I am rising now on a point of order so that you may rule on this, at your earliest convenience, before we start debating Bill C-20. The House of Commons Procedure and Practices , by Marleau and Montpetit, says on page 538, and I quote:
Points of Order respecting procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
This is of the utmost importance. Some of the amendments I am proposing are aimed at clarifying the wording of clauses 1(5) and 2(3) of Bill C-20.
These clauses state that the House of Commons shall take into account any views it considers to be relevant to the consideration of the question and the will to secede.
My amendments, which were rejected, are only aimed at specifying that these views can be the ones of the government of the province that wants to secede and, in my humble opinion, my amendments do not go beyond the scope of the bill. However, they were deemed out of order, which seems to indicate that my freedom of expression has been restricted.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, since you are the guardian of the privileges of members of the House, particularly those in the opposition. On this issue, the
House of Commons Procedure and Practice , by Marleau and Montpetit, also specifies, on page 261, and I quote:
It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.
It goes on to say:
Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament; it has been described as:
...a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.
Since you are the guardian of the privileges of this House and of its members, I draw your attention to the consequences of ruling out of order the amendments I submitted as a member representing his fellow citizens.
With all due respect, I do not understand why I cannot discuss these amendments. Because you ruled them as being out of order, not only myself, but all the members of this House are prevented from debating them.
This is an important and urgent matter, but you should take the time to examine the situation and make an informed decision. Your ruling will determine the freedom that the members of this House will enjoy in the future. Neither I nor my colleagues want to see this freedom of speech challenged only because my amendments deal with Bill C-20.
To conclude, I would like to quote constitutional experts whom our PC colleague quoted this morning, namely professors Brun and Tremblay, who, in the fifth edition of their book on constitutional law, wrote the following:
The safeguarding the rights of the opposition is one of the most fundamental unwritten rules that the Speaker of the House must advocate, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, we need you to be the guardian of our privilege to speak, to amend legislation, to introduce amendments that were ruled out of order and should not have been.