Mr. Speaker, I believe before we can move forward there should be some kind of a ruling on that, but I have another completely separate point of order that I would like to raise in regard to this.
If we go to today's Notice Paper, there is some wording in the motion that we are debating today that is causing me concern. The motion from today's Order Paper reads, and I would like to quote:
That this House, while disapproving of any infraction of its privileges or rights by the other House, in this case waives its claim to insist upon such rights and privileges, but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent;--
That motion raises two questions that I believe have to be answered before we proceed. Number one, is it possible to waive privileges? Second, if it is, should not the privileges we are waiving be clearly stated in the motion?
I was not able to find any Canadian parliamentary references to this point, but there were two in the Australian parliament that I would like to refer to because they had to deal with this particular issue, and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, they share a common heritage in regard to parliamentary tradition.
Odgers' Australian Senate Practice , Tenth Edition , under a section titled “Waiver of Privilege”, on page 69 states, and I will quote:
From time to time suggestions are made of a House or its members “waiving their privilege”, for example, by allowing the examination of particular parliamentary procedures by a court in a particular case. Such suggestions are misconceived. It is not possible--
And I emphasize this:
It is not possible for either a House or a member to waive, in whole or in part, any parliamentary immunity. The immunities of the Houses are established by law and a House or a member cannot change that law any more than they can change any other law. This was clearly indicated by a case in the Senate in 1985. A petition by solicitors requesting that the Senate “waive its privilege” in relation to evidence given before a Senate committee was not acceded to, principally on the ground that the Senate does not have the power to waive an immunity established by law.
Odgers' Australian Senate Practice , Sixth Edition , under a section titled “Waiving of Privilege”, on page 1037 states, and I quote again:
On 24 September 1952, a member of the House of Representatives asked the Speaker (Hon. A.G. Cameron) if it was possible for a Member of the House to waive Parliamentary privilege. The following day the Speaker replied as follows:
And I will continue with the quotation:
Each member enjoys an individual privilege which guarantees him certain powers and immunities needful to perform his functions as one of that collective body which is this House. But the privilege becomes a collective privilege in relation to anything said or done in this House in the discharge of his duties and functions. One of the oldest privileges of Parliament and the one most obvious to us all is the privilege of free speech within the chamber. Once something has been said in this House it becomes the collective property of the House, although the responsibility for saying it rests on the member. A member is always at liberty to retract or qualify something said here, but he cannot divest his statement, once having uttered it, of the privileges of the House. Nor can he, by a subsequent statement made under the same privilege, waive, cancel, impair, or destroy the privilege protecting his original statement.
I understand that similar wording has been used in the House, in 1997, but the motion also said and I quote:
--but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent;--
Mr. Speaker, you can read my lips: I do not believe that the government can waive the privileges of any member of this House at any time. The government cannot violate the privileges of any member, not even once.
I would like clarification on the two points I have raised. Is it possible to waive privileges? And if it is, should not the privileges we are waiving be clearly stated in the motion?
I look forward to your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker.