Thank you for your input. That's debate; it's not a point of order.
Order, please.
Mr. Goodyear, could I just take a moment?
Before I go to your point of order, Mr. Goodyear, Mr. Tilson has asked about the sub judice convention and why I think I have interpreted it as incorrect. This is from Marleau and Montpetit, specifically to do with the sub judice convention, and it's page 78 for the members' reference.
It says that it is accepted practice that in the interests of justice and fair play, certain restrictions should be placed on the freedom of MPs to make reference to criminal cases awaiting judicial decisions. The word “convention” is used as no rule exits to prevent Parliament from discussing a matter that is sub judice. The acceptance of a restriction is a voluntary restraint—I referred to it as self-imposed; it's voluntary—to protect an accused person or other party to the court action from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue.
Accordingly, with the reference to parliamentary authority, my decision with regard to Mr. Mayrand's claim and the voluntary imposition of the sub judice convention is that I accept, and we're going to proceed on that basis.