I wanted to say that the example I have just cited is a precise reflection of the work we should be doing. That moreover is the work that we are being prevented from doing or that we are preventing ourselves from doing as a result of the motion before us. I will recall that the text of that motion is as follows: "That all Committee business of the Committee be conducted in camera." That is what we obviously refuse to allow.
Now I would like to read from a document that concerns House procedure. It may help us understand what promotes this relationship of trust that we are seriously undermining. I know that you feel time is dragging on, Mr. Gourde, but this will barely take a few minutes. As you will see, it is directly related to the amendment. It reads as follows:
The House of Commons and its Members enjoy certain constitutional rights and immunities which are collectively referred to as parliamentary privilege (or simply “privilege”). Parliamentary privileges were first claimed centuries ago when the English House of Commons was struggling to establish a distinct role for itself within Parliament. These privileges were necessary to protect the House of Commons and its Members, not from the people, but from the power and interference of the King and the House of Lords. The privileges enjoyed by the House and its Members continue to be vital to the proper functioning of Parliament. From time to time the House of Commons in Canada has had to challenge the Crown, the Executive (Cabinet) or the Upper House (the Senate), by asserting its independence based on parliamentary privilege.
Further on, it states:Rights that are protected by privilege are those that are necessary in order to allow Members of the House of Commons to perform their parliamentary functions.
I am not making these words up; they are here. It seems to me that is what I am doing.
Then it states:These rights are enjoyed both by individual Members of Parliament—because the House cannot perform its functions without its Members—and by the House, as a whole, for the protection of its Members as well as its own authority and dignity.
I admit I did not expect to see the word "dignity". I smiled and felt a wave of fresh air and satisfaction in reading that it was a matter of dignity. In my view, the motion before us distances us from that.
I continue:The rights and immunities related to Members individually may be grouped under the following headings:[...]
I'll give you the first right. You don't have the right to respond, and I am sorry about that, but I'll give you the response: it is freedom of speech.