Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker, the privileges of the House -- or of Members -- sorry, of individual Members to freedom of speech are defined in the House of Commons procedure -- procedural guide as the privilege of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings is generally regarded as the most important of the privileges enjoyed by Members of Parliament. This right is protected by the Constitution Act, the Parliament of Canada Act, and extends to our legislature as well. Freedom of speech from its Members to speak freely in the conduct of proceedings of Parliament, such as the chamber, during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they make in order to encourage truthful and complete disclosure without fear of reprisal or other adverse actions as the result of their testimony. This right is also extended to individuals who appear before the House of Commons or the legislature. Legislature could not work effectively unless its Members and witnesses appearing before House committees were able to speak and criticize without being held to account by any outside body.

Mr. Speaker, the work we do -- the underpinning of the work we do by privilege is very important and which allows us to represent our constituents freely and without any intimidation or impingement on our ability to speak freely.

Now, what the Minister is asserting is that she feels unable to do her work because of a message on Facebook that occurred after the -- after the proceedings in question, after votes had been taken, while the budget is still underway. Rhetorical -- rhetorical flourishes, even if they are written, should -- are exactly that. When we negotiate in this House for budgets, it is done in in-camera discussions, in committee tables, within this institution. It is not all done in public. It could be one Member's assertion that that is a backroom space and that is deal is being cut there. It could be another's that that is a transparent, organic, wholistic way to do business. It is the interpretation of Members on how things go underpinned by rhetorical flourish which is important in the business of politics that we are all engaged with.

If we are to extend -- if the Minister feels somehow that a post on social media is -- and she's unable to do her job, I don't think she's met that test, Mr. Speaker. There's been no arresting of her ability to speak in this House, in this chamber. There's been no arresting of her ability to walk through the front doors and do her job here. There's been no direct accusations made in that post certainly about any Member in question, nor an officer of the Assembly -- sorry, nor no one specific.

Mr. Speaker, we should be able to express ourselves as well within our own spaces, within our own platforms, within our own discussions. And if the frustrations -- and that expression can include frustrations as well about process, criticisms of the transparency around process, and criticisms of the decisions made by Members in the House. That's not intimidation. That's a reflection of the record of decisions that happen here and commentary on that. If it is inflammatory, that is something we can address. I would argue that there are better ways to address it than the privileges of this House. I do not feel the test has been made. I feel it is important that we can -- that we conduct our business respectfully, but also, we need to give way to concerns, and we need to be able to express them freely to our constituents as well. That is our right as Canadian citizens as much as it is our -- as much as it is part of the work we do here in the Assembly as Members as well.

I don't -- again, I do not see any way that the Minister was unable to table her budget, to provide a Budget Address, to negotiate with the Standing Committee of Accountability and Oversight, to speak to individual Members. I don't see how a Facebook post impeded her ability to do any of those things and infringed on her privilege. That's the accusation made here. That is -- that is why the point is being asserted. I see no -- in no way that that has been done, and if I'm missing something -- if I'm missing something, that's fine, but to me, this appears that someone didn't like something that was written on Facebook and is now rising a point of privilege. I think that is not the correct way to use privilege. There are other tools in this House.

And I should add that the conventions and protocols of consensus government, which are written down and form an important place in our handbook on how we do our business procedurally -- or not even procedurally, sorry -- how we do business informally are not subject to parliamentary privilege. A violation of those protocols and guiding conventions is not subject to privilege. So any assertions around the element of surprise being inconsistent with consensus, that may be true, but it is not subject to privilege. Any conventions on how standing committees are supposed to speak to each other is not subject to privilege. I encourage you to take that into account as you deliberate on this point.

Again, I do not feel that the Minister has been impeded in any way in the execution of her duties to bring this budget forward. And, in fact, we are set to continue deliberation later today, which I don't think a Facebook post is impeding, and when there's a resolution on the vote -- of the resolution bill, I don't think there will be -- a Facebook post will impede that either. The procedure is moving well ahead. We do it every day. We have been doing it every day for the past couple weeks. So I do not feel the case has been made. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.