Congratulations, Mr. Speaker. I wish you well in your new responsibility, but that's not my point of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I want, today, to express a point of privilege as a Member of this House. Yesterday, when I arrived in Yellowknife at the airport, I was greeted by a sheriff who presented me with a statement of claim filed by Don Morin.
Mr Speaker, the effect of this matter is twofold. First, I feel, as an elected Member, the filing of a lawsuit against me results in my inability to discuss this matter, to express it in plain language. The bottom line is the effect may be to keep me quiet as a result of this sub judice convention.
Mr. Speaker, I fully recognize the rules of this House do not allow for Members to speak with regard to issues which are before the courts, particularly when you review rule 409 section 9 of Beauchesne's which states: "A question cannot deal with a matter that is before a court."
Further, Mr. Speaker, in Beauchesne's, the sub judice convention section 505 states, and I quote: "Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play."
However, section 506, the first part, states: "The sub judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases." The second part states: "The precedents in criminal cases are consistent in preventing reference to court cases before a judgment is rendered; however, the convention ceases to apply
after the judgment is given...Nevertheless, the convention is applied again when an appeal is launched."
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, section 507(1) states: "No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others." The second part of section 507 indicates, and I quote, "In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage."
Mr. Speaker, according to section 507(2), my case is a civil case and has not, as of yet, reached the trial stage as my notice of claim has only been served on February 14, 1995.
Mr. Speaker, further, the sub judice convention in Beauchesne's section 510 states, and I quote: "The Speaker has pointed out 'that the House has never allowed the sub judice convention to stand in the way of its consideration of a matter vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the House.'"
The second part of my point of privilege, section 511 states: "The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament is a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. The Speaker should interfere with that freedom of speech only in exceptional cases where it is clear that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals."
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt each elected Member of this Assembly, and any other elected Members of any Assembly of the land, enjoy a fundamental privilege of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone to our democratic process which we all enjoy as Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, more importantly my fundamental freedom of speech as an MLA has been threatened and it has been hindered. My point of privilege as an elected Member, I feel, is my fundamental freedom of speech to speak out on behalf of the interests of my constituents which has been impeded upon as a result of the lawsuit filed by Mr. Morin. The possible effect of this lawsuit is that I could be constrained from speaking vigorously as I have in the past on behalf of my constituents of Thebacha on other issues lest I again be faced with another lawsuit.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request you rule on my point of privilege. Thank you.