Mr. Speaker, on the same point, first I would like to thank the government House leader for raising this question of privilege. We agree with the general principle and the comments that have been put forward.
Clearly the court decision with which we are dealing has gone far beyond its jurisdiction in terms of now intruding into this arena and what has been a very long-standing tradition of parliamentary privilege, and in particular the issue where a member cannot be called as a witness for 40 days before or after a session and 40 days after dissolution.
However, I would note that this practice has been in effect, as the member noted, since 1867, so we are talking about something that happened more than 100 years ago. From the point of view of looking at the relevancy and the reality of what now is before us as members in terms of the business of the world and the courts and so on, it is something we should be looking at.
So while I agree with the principle and that a prima facie case exists for this to be sent to the procedure and House affairs committee, there is actually something worth examining here in terms of the 40 days and whether or not that is realistic. I think the minister is suggesting that if this were referred to the committee because you have decided that it is a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker, this is obviously something that could be examined.
In the NDP we have had other questions about parliamentary privilege. We have had instances of cases around the application of the Human Rights Act, for example, where we have had serious concerns about parliamentary privilege and the fact that the Human Rights Act does not apply to complaints.
There are some questions here, but on this specific issue of the ruling of the 40 days, we agree that it is important to allow this to go to committee to have some discussion and to consider what might follow as a result.