Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the government House leader does not want us to raise our point. Is he hiding something? Does this bother him?
In short, the Minister of Justice and officials from her department did it again in a meeting this morning. Notwithstanding the complexity and the importance of this bill, it is, at the very least, peculiar that nobody at the Department of Justice requested simultaneous interpretation for their briefing session on Bill C-36 this morning. For more than one hour at the beginning of this briefing, the minister's officials provided information solely in English.
Assistants of members of the Bloc Quebecois were present at that meeting and were unable to obtain the information in their native language, despite the complexity of the bill.
The right to service in the language of one's choice is guaranteed under section 133 of Canada's constitution as well as under the Official Languages Act.
In view of the complexity of this bill and taking into account the language barrier, it becomes very difficult for parliamentary assistants and for the members themselves to form an informed opinion about such a bill.
The reference book entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice says on pages 66 and 67, and I quote:
Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege”--
I could also refer to Erskine May, who said the following, and I quote:
The privileges of Parliament are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
Let me now quote from Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition, chapter 2, page 13:
If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a member of parliament--i.e. any of the member's activities that have a connection with a proceeding in parliament--in such a case that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege.
In conclusion, my right to receive information in my native language, through my assistants, was violated this morning by the Minister of Justice.
Considering these facts, I submit that my privileges as a parliamentarian were also violated.
Should you rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.