If I may, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Martin, Mr. Maingot's book on privilege and parliamentary inviolability uses privilege in the more global sense of that, where, as you so correctly point out, there are various rogues and miscreants who under the umbrella of privilege, because they're parliamentarians, can't be arrested, can do heaven knows what with impunity.
By contrast, sadly, the phrase “parliamentary privilege” is what we're stuck with here. But what it does is it basically attaches to the proceedings of Parliament and the independence of the House, so that we're stuck with the semantic thing. And I take your point about the fact that people tend to misuse it and misunderstand the phrase. I think one thing that would be helpful is that there have been suggestions.... And I believe the committee is looking at the possibility of setting up a way to deal with these third-party requests for documents so that committees, for example—very often it refers to committee stuff that went on, work or documents from committees—could be consulted about the documents in question, simply because they're proceedings of Parliament; that is to say, they have to do with the debate of the elected officials
If you take it back to its simplest, it allows members in the House freedom of speech that they enjoy on the floor of the House or in committee. To back away from the idea of parliamentary privilege because people don't understand it and think that it has been excessively used, which is only too true in many jurisdictions, I would strongly say that I don't think it's the case here. But certainly I think you have your work cut out for you in describing—and I think your report could play a very useful role in this—privilege in the Canadian context...and far too verbose clerks.
Mr. Chairman, I see you very kindly looking at the clock.