Mr. Chairman, it is a point of privilege. We asked that this meeting be public and you refused to discuss the motion.
My point of privilege relates to freedom of expression. I consider that my freedom of expression was infringed when you called the vote on Mr. Keddy's motion without giving us—myself and Mr. Guimond—an opportunity to speak to it. We had things to say.
On page 89 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, there is a discussion of freedom of speech:
The rights, privileges and immunities of individual Members of the House may be categorized as follows:
- freedom of speech;
[...] By far, the most important right accorded to Members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in Parliamentary proceedings. 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 [...]
That final paragraph is taken from the First Report of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members, presented to the House on April 29, 1977. This right is also extended to witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees. So, this is not something recent.
The issue today is the right to speak in Committee.
You called the vote on Mr. Keddy's motion, and all the Conservative and Liberal members voted. You did not agree to address my motion, requesting that the meeting be public. Now we are meeting in public, and that is perfectly appropriate. It is abundantly clear that we are not the ones that prompted that change.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following:
Much has been written about this over the centuries in Great Britain, Canada and throughout the Commonwealth.
In Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, this privilege [we are still talking about the freedom of speech] is expressed in broader terms as immunity of proceedings from impeachment and question in the courts. It is also stated that this is the only immunity of substance possessed by the Houses of Parliament and their Members and committees [and their Members obviously] in relation to what is said during proceedings. Odgers asserts that there are two aspects to the immunity:
First, there is the immunity from civil or criminal action and examination in legal proceedings of members of the Houses and of witnesses and others taking part in proceedings in Parliament […] Secondly, there is the immunity of parliamentary proceedings as such from impeachment or question in the courts.
A similar position has been adopted in Canada in a decision of the Commission of Inquiry Into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, which indicated that allowing transcripts from a committee to be used in a public inquiry to question witnesses could result in the proceedings in the committee being questioned or impeached. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court.
That is taken from the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, Who is responsible?: Fact Finding Report (hereinafter referred to as Gomery), Vol. 1…