Contents:
Parliamentary Privileges in Canada
Concept of Parliamentary Privileges
Definition of Parliamentary Privileges by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: Historic privileges that adhere to members of Parliament, the most important residual one being the freedom from prosecution for anything said in the Commons chamber.
Parliamentary Privileges
Privilege in the Pre-Confederation British North American Colonies
From the establishment in 1758 of the first legislative assembly in Nova Scotia, the common law accorded the necessary powers to the legislature and its Members to perform their legislative work. As Maingot notes: “Members had freedom of speech in debate and the right of regulating and ordering their proceedings, and were protected from being arrested in connection with civil cases, because the legislature had first call on their services and attendance”.[40] As to the power of an assembly in the colonies to punish and specifically imprison for contempt, the situation was not at all clear.[41] In effect, the rights enjoyed by the legislative assemblies in the pre‑Confederation period were quite limited.[42] However, as early as 1758, the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia had an individual arrested and briefly confined because of threats made against a member of the Assembly.[43]
In Upper and Lower Canada, the Constitutional Act, 1791,[44] adopted by the British Parliament, was silent on the privileges of the legislatures, although by 1801 the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in Upper Canada claimed “by the name of the Assembly, the freedom of speech and generally all the like privileges and liberties as are enjoyed by the Commons of Great Britain our Mother Country”.[45] The Assembly of Upper Canada proceeded to fight for and assert many of the same privileges, such as freedom from arrest while sitting and freedom from jury duty, claimed by the British Commons. The Assembly also claimed the power to send for and question witnesses and to punish any individual who refused to appear or answer questions, using its power of imprisonment to ensure obedience of its orders. Although challenged on occasion, the Assembly was successful in enforcing its privileges.[46] In the period prior to responsible government, the Assembly in Upper Canada guarded its reputation by punishing libels against it in the newspapers and also fought for the right to initiate money bills, that is, bills for appropriations and taxation.[47] In general, the Assembly of Upper Canada was satisfied that it could discharge its functions with the privileges it had.[48]
In the same period, the Assembly of Lower Canada also asserted both individual and corporate privileges―freedom from arrest and freedom from the obligation to appear in court with respect to civil suits brought against Members, and the right of the Assembly to punish for contempt, no matter the offender.[49] The Assembly was not afraid to put forward its claims of privilege against the Crown. In 1820, it blocked the conduct of business at the opening of a new Parliament because of a dispute over the return of election writs and again in 1835 over comments made by the Governor about the privileges of the Assembly.[50]
With the Union Act, 1840[51] which created the Province of Canada out of Upper and Lower Canada, and especially following the achievement of responsible government, issues of privilege were raised less frequently and were not as serious. This can be attributed to the fact that responsible government acknowledged the supremacy of the Assembly. The Assembly no longer felt threatened by outside bodies and thus was less sensitive to criticism. Members were less likely to be upset when their rights were unintentionally interfered with, and most infractions of privilege were committed by inadvertence.[52] “With respect to individual claims, the Assembly became more careful not to use privilege to gain rights for its members over and above the rights belonging to all.”[53]
As had been the case in the old colonial assemblies, the power to commit or imprison for contempt claimed by the Assembly of the Province of Canada remained an issue. It was held in 1842 that colonial legislatures had no power to commit for contempt outside the assembly, and in 1866 it was held that they had no power to commit to prison for contempt even when committed in the assembly.[54]
Privilege Since Confederation
The privileges of the British House of Commons were made applicable to Canada by the Constitution Act, 1867. The Preamble of that Act, which states that Canada has a “Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”, entrenched a Westminster-style parliamentary system, including the historical privileges necessary for such a system to function. As well, section 18 of the Act granted the Parliament of Canada the right to define its privileges by statute as long as these privileges never exceeded those enjoyed by the British House of Commons at the time of Confederation:
“The Privileges, Immunities, and Powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons and by the Members thereof respectively shall be such as are from Time to Time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and by the Members thereof.”[55]
Within three weeks of the opening of the First Session (1867‑68) of the First Parliament (1867‑72), the Senate and the House passed An Act to define the privileges, immunities and powers of the Senate and the House of Commons, and to give summary protection to persons employed in the publication of Parliamentary Papers,[56] which claimed for the Parliament of Canada the privileges, immunities and powers of the British House of Commons. This statute also provided that parliamentary papers were protected by privilege and protected publishers of the authorized parliamentary papers and records against civil or criminal suits.[57]
In 1868, Parliament adopted legislation granting the Senate the power to examine witnesses at the Bar on oath and to allow the select committees on private bills of both Houses to examine witnesses on oath.[58] In 1873, the power to examine witnesses on oath was extended to all House and Senate committees.[59] These two pieces of legislation led to debate in the Senate as to whether they were contrary to the terms of section 18 of the Constitution Act because the British Parliament only acquired the right to examine witnesses on oath in 1871. It is speculated that the 1868 statute was inadvertently granted Royal Assent; however, in the case of the second bill, when Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald expressed his misgivings, the Oaths Act, 1873 was disallowed by the Crown who reported that the bill was ultra vires.[60] Subsequently, at the request of the Canadian government, section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was repealed and replaced with the following:
“The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the Members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the Members thereof.”[61]
This amended section provided that the Canadian Parliament may adopt legislation claiming new privileges as long as these privileges are also held by the British House of Commons.
In the early years of Confederation, most of the matters raised in the House with respect to privilege concerned the right of a Member to a seat in the House;[62] the interference of officials in elections;[63] the independence of Parliament;[64] the abuse of a Member’s position for monetary gain;[65] and reflections or libels in books and newspapers about the House or its Members.[66] After Parliament adopted electoral legislation dealing with such matters as dual representation, controverted elections, and corrupt electoral practices, the number of such motions declined.[67]
The manner in which questions of privilege were raised following Confederation was vastly different from today’s procedure. Dozens of cases between 1867 and 1913 followed the same, simple course. A Member would rise, explain the matter of privilege and conclude with a motion calling on the House to take some action—usually that someone be called to the Bar or that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report. At that point, without any intervention on the part of the Speaker, debate would begin on the motion, amendments might be moved and, finally, the House would come to a decision on the matter.[68] The House would then take whatever further action was required by the motion. Perhaps because of the immediate recognition given to Members rising on “questions of privilege”, it was also common throughout this time for Members to take the floor ostensibly to raise such a question, but in fact to make personal explanations. Members used the claim of a breach of privilege as a ready means to be recognized by the Speaker and to gain the floor in order to state a complaint or grievance of whatever kind.[69] Here, too, they met with little interference from Chair Occupants.[70]
From 1913 to 1958, while the number of “questions of privilege” blossomed for such purposes as the recognition of school groups in the gallery, congratulatory messages, complaints, grievances and a plethora of procedural matters, in addition to the continued “personal explanations”,[71] the number of legitimate matters of privilege dealt with by the House declined dramatically with only three being referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and one to a special committee.[72] Modern practice in matters of privilege first took root following the publication of the fourth edition of Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada in 1958 which included a new section, taken from the 14th edition of May, published in 1946, on the manner of raising questions of privilege.[73] This description of the British procedure soon became a handy reference seized upon by successive Speakers, beginning with Speaker Michener, as a way to curtail spurious interventions by Members on non privilege matters. It introduced two guiding conditions: whether on the first impression (prima facie) the matter raised appeared to be a matter of privilege, and whether the matter was raised as soon as it could have been. Both were to be determined by the Speaker before a debate could proceed.[74] Nonetheless, on occasion the House adopted motions on matters of privilege without a ruling of the Speaker.[75]
The new citation in Beauchesne enabled successive Speakers to keep a tighter rein on questions of privilege, even though practice required that the interventions at least be heard, however briefly, before being ruled on. The prima facie condition was invoked most often, although a number of other cases were refused because they were not raised at the proper time.[76] Several cases arose which permitted the Speaker to find that debate on a matter of privilege should go forward, with the result that a body of precedents began to take shape. For example, a 1959 case (known as the Pallett case) led Speaker Michener to declare that a proposed motion in which the conduct of a Member was alluded to was not, prima facie, a matter of privilege and could not be given precedence because the proposed motion was not a specific complaint against the Member,[77] a ruling frequently cited in subsequent years.[78] In 1964, Deputy Speaker Lamoureux ruled that questions of privilege could not be raised during proceedings on the adjournment motion,[79] while in 1975 the House adopted a report which recommended that such matters should not be taken up during Question Period.[80] Divisions were also judged an inopportune time for raising questions of privilege on matters not related to the business then before the House.[81] Finally, a number of Speakers, in deciding that a prima facie case did not exist, suggested to the Members concerned that the matter might instead be brought forward through the normal procedure, that is, as a substantive motion after proper notice.[82]
Since 1958, there have been dozens of prima facie cases of privilege, the majority of them dealing with allegations of misconduct by Members. Other matters found to be prima facie include the inability of Members to access the Parliamentary Precinct and the disclosure of in camera committee proceedings and draft reports. These cases are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. See also Appendix 15, “Prima Facie Cases of Privilege Since 1958”.
Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009
PRIMA FACIE CASES OF PRIVILEGE SINCE 1958
Modern practice in matters of privilege first took root following the publication of the fourth edition of Arthur Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada in 1958. Beauchesne included a new section, taken from May’s 14th edition published in 1946, on the manner of raising questions of privilege. This description of the British procedure soon became a handy reference seized upon by successive Speakers, beginning with Speaker Michener, as a way to curtail spurious interventions by Members on non-privilege matters. It introduced two guiding conditions: whether on the first impression (prima facie) the matter raised appeared to be a matter of privilege, and whether the matter was raised as soon as it could have been. Both were to be determined by the Speaker before a debate could proceed. The motions were debatable and amendable and were sometimes negatived. On occasion, the House adopted motions on matters of privilege without a ruling of the Speaker. While not all questions of privilege were referred to a committee, on those occasions when they were, the committee generally reported back that they had studied the matter and that no further action was necessary. In rare circumstances, the House concurred in the committee report.
Date of Speaker’s Ruling | Subject matter (member raising issue) |
References | Disposition of Motion | Committee Reference | Report from Committee |
February 16, 1960 | Alleged improper reproduction of Hansard by Sperry and Hutchinson Co. (Murdo Martin (Timmins)) | Debates, February 15, 1960, p. 1055; February 16, 1960, pp. 1100-4; Journals, February 16, 1960, pp. 156‑8 |
Agreed to | Yes[1] | Journals, March 16,1960, p. 280 |
November 1, 1962 | Le Devoir article reporting Bernard Dumont’s (Bellechasse) remarks on the attitude of Speaker Lambert concerning questions in the House on bilingualism (Lionel Chevrier (Laurier)) | Debates, November 1, 1962, pp. 1167-8; Journals, November 1, 1962, pp. 201‑2 |
Agreed to[2] | Yes | Committee did not report |
November 29, 1962 | La Presse articles regarding Members’ participation in international conferences (Raymond Langlois (Megantic)) | Debates, November 28, 1962, pp. 2105-6; November 29, 1962, pp. 2132-3; Journals, November 29, 1962, p. 334 |
Agreed to | Yes | Committee did not report |
June 18, 1964 | Ottawa Citizen editorial reflecting on conduct of a Member (Terence Nugent (Edmonton–Strathcona)) | Debates, June 18, 1964, pp. 4431‑5; Journals, June 18, 1964, pp. 443-5 |
Negatived on recorded division | N/A | N/A |
February 16, 1965 | Arrest of Gilles Grégoire (Lapointe) within parliamentary precincts (George McIIraith (Ottawa West)) | Debates, February 16, 1965, pp. 11356‑62; Journals, February 16, 1965, pp. 1035‑6 |
Agreed to on division | Yes | Journals, March 19, 1965, pp. 1141‑2 |
March 22, 1965 | Request that any Member called upon to give evidence before the Dorion Commission be authorized to do so by the House (Erik Nielsen (Yukon)) | Debates, March 19, 1965, pp. 12555‑9; March 22,1965, pp. 12614‑7; March 23,1965, pp. 12675‑7; Journals, March 23,1965, pp. 1159‑60 |
Agreed to | No | N/A |
March 23, 1965 | Unauthorized reproduction of the cover page of the Hansard Index by the Political Action Committee of the Steelworkers Hamilton Council (John Munro (Hamilton East)) | Debates, March 23,1965, pp. 12677‑9; Journals, March 23, 1965, p. 1160 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, April 1, 1965, p. 1204 |
March 10, 1966 | Charges made by Pierre Cardin (Minister of Justice) regarding the involvement of certain Members with a spy (Douglas Harkness (Calgary North)) | Debates, March 10,1966, pp. 2483-96; Journals, March 10, 1966, pp. 268‑9 |
No motion was moved[3] | N/A | N/A |
October 24, 1966 | Allegations in Le Droitthat the Member was being directed by someone in the public galleries (Terence Nugent (Edmonton–Strathcona)) | Debates, October 20, 1966, pp. 8889‑91; Journals, October 24,1966, pp. 911‑6 |
Negatived on recorded division | N/A | N/A |
March 27, 1969 | Refusal of the government to pay the Member the terminal gratuity following his departure from the Public Service (John Roberts (York–Simcoe)) | Debates, March 27, 1969, pp. 7181-2; Journals, March 27,1969, p. 853 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, April 24, 1969, p. 937 |
May 14, 1970 | Right of Members to lease or buy Crown lands (Erik Nielsen (Yukon)) | Debates, May 14, 1970, pp. 6949-51; Journals, May 14, 1970, p. 803 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, June 3, 1970, pp. 917‑8 |
September 4, 1973 | Interrogation of the Member and her staff in her parliamentary office by police forces (Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)) | Debates, September 4, 1973, pp. 6179-80, 6181; Journals, September 4, 1973, p. 532 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, September 21, 1973, p. 567 |
October 17, 1973 | Electronic surveillance of NDP caucus meeting by a journalist (David Lewis (York South)) | Debates, October 17, 1973, pp. 6942-4; Journals, October 17, 1973, p. 577 |
Agreed to[4] | No | N/A |
December 19, 1974 | Remarks by Réal Caouette (Témiscamingue) that Members of Parliament bribed reporters from the Press Gallery (Roch La Salle (Joliette)) | Debates, December 17, 1974, pp. 2317-21; December 19, 1974, pp. 2383‑4; Journals, December 19, 1974, p. 228 |
Agreed to on recorded division | Yes | Journals, March 6, 1975, p. 349 |
July 25, 1975 | Montreal Gazette article alleging that the Member had advance knowledge of a budget and had conveyed the information to businessmen (John Reid (Kenora–Rainy River)) | Debates, July 24, 1975, pp. 7886-9; Journals, July 25, 1975, pp. 742-3 |
Agreed to, as amended | Yes | Journals, October 17, 1975, pp. 781-2 |
May 7, 1976 | Allegations by a former Member that a number of Members of Parliament had been in receipt of bribes (Walter Baker (Grenville–Carleton)) | Debates, May 7, 1976, pp. 13269-71, 13280‑1; Journals, May 7, 1976, p. 1275 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, May 21, 1976, pp. 1305‑7 |
March 21, 1978 | Alleged electronic surveillance by the RCMP (John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt)) | Debates, March 1, 1978, pp. 3348-9; March 8, 1978, pp. 3571-6; March 16, 1978, pp. 3831‑2; March 21,1978, pp. 3975-6, 3988; Journals, March 21, 1978, pp. 520-2, 525 |
Negatived on recorded division | N/A | N/A |
December 6, 1978 | Allegation that a letter from the Solicitor General was misleading and obstructed the Member in his duties (Allan Lawrence (Northumberland–Durham)) | Debates, November 3, 1978, pp. 777-80; November 9, 1978, pp. 964-7; December 6, 1978, pp. 1856-77; December 7, 1978, pp. 1892-925; Journals, November 9, 1978, pp. 125-9; December 6, 1978, pp. 221-4; December 7, 1978, p. 228 |
Negatived on recorded division | N/A | N/A |
March 22, 1983 | Montreal Gazette article alleging that the Member was a paid lobbyist (Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln)) | Debates, March 16,1983, pp. 23834-5; March 22,1983, pp. 24027-30; Journals, March 22,1983, p. 5376 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, November 23, 1983, p. 6588 |
February 20, 1984 | Alleged intimidation of a Member by a Canada Post official (Albert Cooper (Peace River)) | Debates, February 6, 1984, pp. 1101-6; February 9, 1984, pp. 1234-5; February 14, 1984, pp. 1382-4; February 20, 1984, pp. 1559-61; Journals, February 20, 1984, pp. 188-9 |
Negatived on recorded division | N/A | N/A |
May 6,1985 | Newspaper advertisement by former Member claiming to be the present Member (Andrew Witer (Parkdale–High Park)) | Debates, April 25,1985, pp. 4111-3; May 6, 1985, p. 4439; Journals, May 6, 1985, p. 570 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, May 30, 1985, pp. 676‑7 |
May 14,1987 | Unauthorized disclosure by John Parry (Kenora–Rainy River) of results of a vote held in an in camera sitting of a standing committee[5](Felix Holtmann (Selkirk–Interlake)) | Debates, April 8, 1987, pp. 5299, 5329-30; May 5, 1987, pp. 5737- 42; May 14, 1987, pp. 6108-11; Journals, May 14, 1987, p. 917 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, December 18, 1997, pp. 2014-6 |
October 30, 1989 | Access to Parliament Hill blocked by taxis (Herb Gray (Windsor West)) | Debates, October 30, 1989, pp. 5298-302; Journals, October 30, 1989, p. 773 |
Agreed to[6] | Yes | Committee did not report |
November 6, 1990 | Disturbance in the gallery. Member claimed involvement of Howard McCurdy (Windsor–St. Clair) in disturbance[7](Albert Cooper (Peace River)) | Debates, October 18, 1990, pp. 14359-68; November 6, 1990, pp. 15177-81; Journals, November 6, 1990, p. 2228 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, March 6, 1991, p. 2666 |
October 31, 1991 | Conduct of Ian Waddell (Port Moody–Coquitlam) in grabbing the Mace (Jesse Flis (Parkdale–High Park)) | Debates, October 31, 1991, pp. 4271-8, 4279‑80, 4309-10; Journals, October 31, 1991, p. 574 |
Agreed to[8] | No | N/A |
December 4, 1992 | Alleged intimidation of a committee witness by a CBC employee (Don Boudria (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell)) | Debates, December 4, 1992, pp. 14629-31; Journals, December 4, 1992, p. 2284 |
Agreed to | Yes[9] | Journals, February 18, 1993, p. 2528[10] |
March 23, 1993 | Alleged comments by Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont) about Acting Speaker (Charles DeBlois) casting doubt on the integrity and impartiality of the Speakership (Gilles Bernier (Beauce)) | Debates, March 16, 1993, p. 17027; March 23, 1993, pp. 17403-5; Journals, March 23, 1993, pp. 2688 |
Agreed to[11] | Yes | Committee did not report |
April 19, 1993 | Failure of the Minister of Finance (Don Mazankowski) to table Order pursuant to the Customs Tariff[12](Derek Lee (Scarborough–Rouge River)) | Debates, February 24, 1993, pp. 16393-4; April 19, 1993, pp. 18104-6;Journals, April 19, 1993, pp. 2796-7 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, September 8, 1993, p. 3338 |
April 19, 1993 | Failure of government to provide response to committee report (Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)) | Debates, March 29, 1993, p. 17722; April 19, 1993, pp. 18104-6 Journals, April 19, 1993, pp. 2796-7 |
Agreed to[13] | Yes | Journals, September 8, 1993, p. 3338 |
March 12, 1996 | Communiqué of Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg) addressed to members of the Canadian Armed Forces in Quebec inviting all Francophone members of the Forces to join the Quebec military in the event of a yes vote supporting separation from Canada (Jim Hart (Okanagan–Similkameen–Merritt)) | Debates, March 12, 1996, pp. 557-67; March 13, 1996, pp. 648-74; March 14, 1996, pp. 680-703, 716‑47; March 18, 1996, pp. 854-8; Journals, March 18, 1996, pp. 107-10 |
Agreed to, as amended[14] | Yes[15] | Journals, June 18, 1996, pp. 565-6 |
March 9, 1998 | Members’ statements in Ottawa Sun bringing into question the integrity of the House and the Speaker (Peter MacKay (Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough)) | Debates, March 9, 1998, pp. 4560-75; March 10, 1998, pp. 4592-8; Journals, March 10, 1998, pp. 550-2 |
Agreed to, as amended | Yes | Journals, April 27, 1998, p. 706[16] |
February 17, 1999 | Molestation of a Member by PSAC picketers[17](Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon–Humboldt)) | Debates, February 17, 1999, pp. 12009-12; Journals, February 17, 1999, p. 1517 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, April 14, 1999, p. 1714 |
February 18, 1999 | Member impeded from entering his office by PSAC picketers (John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast)) | Debates, February 17, 1999, pp. 12009-12; February 18, 1999, p. 12134; Journals, February 18, 1999, p. 1525 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, April 14, 1999, p. 1714 |
March 28, 2000 | Premature disclosure of a draft report from the Subcommittee on Citizenship and Immigration (Joe Fontana (London North Centre)) | Debates, March 17, 2000, pp. 4805-6; March 21, 2000, pp. 4914, 4959-62; March 28, 2000, pp. 5368-87; March 29, 2000, pp. 5434-5; Journals, March 28, 2000, p. 1497; March 28, 2000, pp. 1503-4 |
Negatived on recorded division | N/A | N/A |
March 19, 2001 | Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill before Members of Parliament and their staff (Vic Toews (Provencher)) | Debates, March 14, 2001, pp. 1646-52; March 19, 2001, pp. 1840-5; Journals, March 19, 2001, p. 187 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, May 9, 2001, pp. 385‑6; June 8, 2001, p. 517 |
October 15, 2001 | Justice Department briefing media on contents of a bill prior to legislation being tabled in House (John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast)) | Debates, October 15, 2001, pp. 6082-5; Journals, October 15, 2001, p. 707 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, November 29, 2001, p. 883 |
February 1, 2002 | Allegation that the Minister of National Defence made misleading statements in the House (Brian Pallister (Portage–Lisgar)) | Debates, January 31, 2002, pp. 8517-20; February 1, 2002, pp. 8581-8, 8601‑19; February 4, 2002, pp. 8621-8; February 7, 2002, pp. 8792, 8831-2; Journals, February 1, 2002, pp. 991, 994; February 4, 2002, pp. 997-8; February 7, 2002, pp. 1018-20 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, March 22, 2002, p. 1250 |
April 22, 2002 | Attempt by a Member to remove the Mace from the Table (Ralph Goodale (Wascana)) | Debates, April 17, 2002, pp. 10526-7; April 18, 2002, p. 10537; April 22,2002, pp. 10654-70; April 23, 2002, pp. 10747-8; April 24, 2002, p. 10770; Journals, April 2, 2002, pp. 1323-4; April 23, 2002, pp. 1337-8; April 24, 2002, p. 1341 |
Agreed to | No[18] | N/A |
May 26, 2003 | Exemption of Members from appearing as a witness before a court during a session (Don Boudria (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell); Gary Breitkreuz (Yorkton–Melville)) | Debates, May 12, 2003, pp. 6089-93; May 16, 2003, p. 6377; May 26, 2003, pp. 6411-4; February 6, 2004, pp. 243-4; Journals, May 26, 2003, p. 797; February 6, 2004, p. 25 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, March 8, 2004, p. 146[19] |
November 6, 2003 | Charge of contempt of Parliament against the former Privacy Commissioner for allegedly deliberately misleading the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (Derek Lee (Scarborough–Rouge River)) | Debates, November 4, 2003, pp. 9150-1; November 5, 2003, pp. 9192-3; November 6, 2003, pp. 9229-31, 9237; Journals, November 6, 2003, pp. 1245, 1249 |
No motion was moved[20] | No | N/A |
March 25, 2004 | Leak of meeting transcripts of the Liberal Party Ontario regional caucus (John O’Reilly (Haliburton–Victoria–Brock)) | Debates, March 11, 2004, pp. 1408-10; March 25, 2004, pp. 1711-2; Journals, March 25, 2004, p. 216 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, April 26, 2004, p. 311 |
November 23, 2004 | Usurpation of the title of a Member of Parliament by a former Member (Michel Guimond (Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord)) | Debates, November 22, 2004, pp. 1657-8; November 23, 2004, pp. 1733-4; Journals, November 23, 2004, p. 240; November 23, 2004, pp. 245-6 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, February 23, 2005, pp. 471-2 |
December 1, 2004 | Access to Parliament Hill blocked by RCMP and other security forces during visit of United States President George W. Bush (Michel Guimond (Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord)) | Debates, December 1, 2004, pp. 2132-5; Journals, December 1, 2004, p. 279 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, January 31, 2005, p. 366; May 17, 2005, pp. 764‑5 |
April 18, 2005 | Misleading information printed in householder (Brian Masse (Windsor West)) | Debates, March 21, 2005, pp. 4377-8; April 18, 2005, pp. 5215-6, 5220; Journals, April 18, 2005, pp. 642, 645 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, May 11, 2005, p. 738 |
May 3, 2005 | Abuse of franking privileges (Mark Holland (Ajax–Pickering)) | Debates, May 3, 2005, pp. 5548-9; May 4, 2005, p. 5674; Journals, May 3, 2005, p. 685; May 4, 2005, p. 701 |
Agreed to on division | Yes | Journals, June 22, 2005, p. 958 |
May 3, 2005 | Abuse of franking privileges (John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country)) | Debates, May 3, 2005, pp. 5584-5; Journals, May 3, 2005, p. 688 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, June 22, 2005, p. 958 |
May 10, 2005 | Abuse of franking privileges (Michael Chong (Wellington–Halton Hills)) | Debates, May 10, 2005, pp. 5885-9; Journals, May 10, 2005, p. 728 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, June 22, 2005, p. 958[21] |
October 6, 2005 | Disclosure in a newspaper article by the Ethics Commissioner of an investigation of a Member (Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East)) | Debates, September 26, 2005, pp. 8025-7; October 6, 2005, pp. 8473-4; Journals, October 6, 2005, p. 1119 |
Agreed to | Yes | Journals, November 18, 2005, pp. 1289-90 |
November 3, 2005 | Allegations against Liberal Members printed in a householder (Denis Coderre (Bourassa)) | Debates, October 27, 2005, pp. 9190-3; November 3, 2005, pp. 9489-509; November 4, 2005, pp. 9513-20, 9537-52; November 14, 2005, pp. 9555-77, 9595; November 15, 2005, pp. 9682-3; Journals, November 3, 2005, pp. 1250-1; November 4, 2005, pp. 1253, 1256; November 14, 2005, pp. 1259, 1266‑7; November 15, 2005, pp. 1273-4 |
Negatived on a recorded division | N/A | N/A |
April 10, 2008 | Allegation that RCMP Deputy Commissioner Barbara George provided false and misleading testimony to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on February 21, 2007 (Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown)) | Debates, April 10, 2008, p. 4721; Journals, April 10, 2008, p. 685 |
Agreed to | No[22] | N/A |
June 17, 2008 | Ruling of the Ethics Commissioner on May 7, 2008 that requires that the Member from West Nova not participate in debate or vote on any motion respecting the Mulroney Airbus settlement (Derek Lee (Scarborough–Rouge River)) | Debates, May 26, 2008, pp. 6006-10; June 17, 2008, pp. 7072-88, 7090‑2; Journals, June 17, 2008, pp. 1003, 1006 |
Agreed to on division | Yes | Committee did not report[23] |
[1] Until 1992, questions of privilege were referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which for a short period of time was also known as the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business.
[2] The motion was moved by Leon Balcer and not by Lionel Chevrier who originally raised the issue.
[3] The Speaker found a prima facie case but ruled that the proposed motion was too general and therefore was not in order. Other Members attempted to move similar or identical motions, but the Speaker ruled them out of order.
[4] The motion was not to have the matter referred to a committee but rather to have the tapes in question surrendered to either David Lewis or the Speaker.
[5] On April 28, 1987, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development presented its Third Report concerning the disclosure by John Parry of the results of a vote held during an in camera meeting.
[6] The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business. On February 16, 1990, the name of this Committee reverted to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[7] The reference to Howard McCurdy was removed from the proposed motion, and the matter of the disturbance in the galleries was referred to the Committee.
[8] There was no reference to a committee. Ian Waddell was called to the Bar of the House and admonished by the Speaker.
[9] At this point, questions of privilege were referred to the Standing Committee on House Management.
[10] The Committee report was concurred in on February 25, 1993 (Journals, p. 2568).
[11] Benoît Tremblay withdrew the offending remarks on March 25, 1993 (Debates, p. 17537).
[12] The document was tabled on February 25, 1993. The Speaker ruled this question of privilege prima facie as well as that of Lloyd Axworthy concerning the delay of the government in responding to a committee report. The motion dealt with the “non‑observance of the tabling requirement for Order in Council … and other documents in the House of Commons …”.
[13] The Speaker ruled on this question of privilege at the same time as he ruled on the question of privilege raised by Derek Lee concerning the late tabling of a Customs Tariff Order. The motion dealt with the “non-observance of the tabling requirement for Order in Council … and other documents in the House of Commons …”.
[14] There were three days of debate before the motion was adopted. Closure was invoked on March 14, 1996, and the motion to refer the matter to the Committee was amended and adopted on March 18, 1996. The amendment removed from the motion the references that the activity was “seditious and offensive”.
[15] The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which had replaced the Standing Committee on House Management.
[16] The Committee report was concurred in on May 5, 1998 (Journals, pp. 744-5).
[17] The question of privilege was originally raised by John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast), following which other Members raised related concerns.
[18] The House voted to suspend Keith Martin (Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca) from the service of the House until he appeared at the Bar of the House to apologize for his actions.
[19] The Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament was prorogued before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could complete its report to the House. In the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, Garry Breitkreuz moved that the matter be referred again to committee.
[20] Following the Speaker’s ruling, Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South), Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, received consent to table a letter of apology he had received from George Radwanski. In light of the tabling, Derek Lee chose not to move the appropriate motion. The House subsequently adopted the following motion by unanimous consent: “That this House find George Radwanski to have been in contempt of this House and acknowledges receipt of his letter of apology, tabled in and read to the House earlier today”.
[21] The May 3, 2005, and the May 10, 2005 prima facie cases of privilege were both addressed in the same report presented by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on June 22, 2005.
[22] On February 12, 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented a report to the House in which it recommended that the House find the Deputy Commissioner in contempt of Parliament but that no further action be taken (Journals, February 12, 2008, p. 423, Debates, p. 2921).
[23] The Thirty-Ninth Parliament was dissolved before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could report to the House.
Resources
See Also
Notes
[40] Maingot, 2nd ed., p. 3. See also p. 198.
[41] Maingot, 2nd ed., p. 3, in particular note 8.
[42] Maingot, 2nd ed., p. 3.
[43] Maingot, 2nd ed., p. 198.
[44] R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 3.
[45] O’Brien, G., “Pre-Confederation Parliamentary Procedure: The Evolution of Legislative Practice in the Lower Houses of Central Canada, 1792‑1866”, Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, 1988, p. 109.
[46] O’Brien, p. 110.
[47] O’Brien, p. 111.
[48] O’Brien, pp. 112‑3.
[49] O’Brien, pp. 191‑2.
[50] O’Brien, pp. 195‑6.
[51] R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 4.
[52] O’Brien, pp. 303‑4, 377.
[53] O’Brien, p. 379.
[54] Maingot, 2nd ed., p. 3, citing Kielley v. Carson (1842), 13 E.R. 225 (P.C.) and Doyle v. Falconer (1866), L.R. 1 P.C. 328.
[55] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No.5.
[56] S.C. 1867‑68, c. 23.
[57] Today, these immunities and powers of the House are embodied as sections 4 and 5 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P‑1. Sections 4 and 5 read as follows:
4. The Senate and the House of Commons, respectively, and the members thereof hold, enjoy and exercise
(a) such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof, in so far as is consistent with that Act; and
(b) such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, not exceeding those, at the time of the passing of the Act, held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof.
5. The privileges, immunities and powers held, enjoyed and exercised in accordance with section 4 are part of the general and public law of Canada and it is not necessary to plead them but they shall, in all courts in Canada, and by and before all judges, be taken notice of judicially.
[58] An Act to provide for Oaths to Witnesses being administered in certain cases for the purposes of either House of Parliament, S.C. 1867‑68, c. 24.
[59] An Act to provide for the examination of witnesses on Oath by Committees of the Senate and House of Commons, in certain cases, S.C. 1873, c. 1.
[60] For further information, see the article by Pelletier, M.R., “Privilege in the Canadian Parliament”, The Parliamentarian, Vol. LIV, No. 3, July 1973, pp. 144‑6.
[61] Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, 38‑39 Vict., c. 38 (U.K.) (R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 13). The Act also confirmed the Oaths Act of 1868 and in 1876, Parliament re-enacted the 1873 legislation giving parliamentary committees the power to examine witnesses under oath (An Act to provide for the examination of witnesses on oath by Committees of the Senate and the House of Commons, in certain cases, S.C. 1876, c. 7). In 1894, the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act, 1894 provided for the examination of witnesses on oath before the Bar of the House as well as before any committee of the Senate and the House (S.C. 1894, c. 16). See also Bourinot, J.G., Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rothman Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 1st ed., 1884), pp. 187‑8.
[62] See, for example, Journals, November 21, 1867, p. 30; April 7, 1874, p. 19; March 29, 1892, pp. 172‑3.
[63] See, for example, Journals, March 7, 1873, pp. 6‑9; March 1, 1883, pp. 68‑9.
[64] See, for example, Journals, May 5, 1873, p. 285; April 14, 1877, p. 264. In order to preserve its independence from the executive, Parliament enacted legislation disqualifying from eligibility to sit in the House any Member who held an office, commission, or employment in the service of the Government of Canada at the time of the election. For further information, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[65] See, for example, Journals, April 9, 1877, p. 236; March 6, 1911, pp. 224-6.
[66] See, for example, Journals, April 7, 1873, pp. 133-4; April 17, 1873, pp. 167-72; June 6, 1906, p. 342.
[67] For further information about the evolution of electoral practices in Canada, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[68] For a good example, see Debates, February 28, 1884, pp. 542‑66. In two rare cases, the Speaker decided the matters raised were not urgent enough to be accorded precedence as matters of privilege (Debates, March 21, 1892, cols. 287‑9; April 6, 1892, cols. 1032‑5).
[69] Beauchesne, A., Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 3rd ed., Toronto: Canada Law Book Company, Limited, 1943, pp. 82‑3.
[70] See, for example, Debates, May 18, 1883, pp. 1281‑3. For examples of interventions from the Speaker, see Debates, February 20, 1877, pp. 122‑3; April 11, 1878, pp. 1867‑72; April 24, 1883, pp. 785‑6.
[71] See, for example, Debates, June 9, 1936, p. 3528; May 16, 1947, p. 3159; March 7, 1955, p. 1761.
[72] Journals, April 20, 1921, p. 199; May 22, 1924, p. 299; February 8, 1932, pp. 15‑6 (special committee); June 30, 1943, pp. 565‑6.
[73] Beauchesne, A., Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 4th ed., Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1958, pp. 94‑6; May, 14th ed., pp. 356‑7.
[74] For a list of questions of privilege ruled prima facie by the Speaker since 1958, see Appendix 15.
[75] See, for example, motion moved by Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Debates, April 27, 1964, pp. 2582‑3; Journals, April 28, 1964, p. 251, Debates, pp. 2645‑7; Journals, June 15, 1964, pp. 425‑6; August 17, 1964, pp. 623‑4; question raised by Erik Nielsen (Yukon): Journals, May 14, 1970, p. 803, Debates, pp. 6949‑51; Journals, June 3, 1970, pp. 917‑8; June 10, 1970, p. 977; motion moved by Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East): Journals, March 14, 1972, p. 61, Debates, p. 795; Journals, May 24, 1972, pp. 321‑6; motion moved by Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Journals, December 22, 1976, p. 270, Debates, pp. 2241‑2; and motion moved by Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration): Journals, April 22, 1980, p. 66, Debates, pp. 285‑8; Journals, July 10, 1980, pp. 347‑8.
[76] See, for example, Debates, May 15, 1964, pp. 3299‑302.
[77] Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 581‑6.
[78] See, for example, Journals, March 11, 1966, pp. 279‑81; October 7, 1970, pp. 1423‑4; May 16, 1972, pp. 300‑1.
[79] Debates, April 30, 1964, pp. 2799‑802. See also Debates, May 17, 1973, p. 3903.
[80] Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399).
[81] Debates, April 12, 1962, p. 2909.
[82] See, for example, the ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Debates, October 29, 1970, p. 686. By definition, a matter of privilege also involves a substantive proposal which, because it involves the privileges of the House or of its Members, is given precedence with the usual notice requirements being waived (Standing Order 48(1)). For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “Procedure for Dealing with Matters of Privilege”.
Law is our Passion
This entry about Parliamentary Privileges has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0) licence, which permits unrestricted use and reproduction, provided the author or authors of the Parliamentary Privileges entry and the Encyclopedia of Law are in each case credited as the source of the Parliamentary Privileges entry. Please note this CC BY licence applies to some textual content of Parliamentary Privileges, and that some images and other textual or non-textual elements may be covered by special copyright arrangements. For guidance on citing Parliamentary Privileges (giving attribution as required by the CC BY licence), please see below our recommendation of "Cite this Entry".
Cite this entry
Legal Citations Generator(2017, 04). Parliamentary Privileges lawi.ca Retrieved 09, 2017, from https://lawi.ca/ |
"Parliamentary Privileges" lawi.ca. 04 2017. 09 2017 <https://lawi.ca/> |
"Parliamentary Privileges" lawi.ca. lawi.ca, 04 2017. Web. 09 2017. <https://lawi.ca/> |
"Parliamentary Privileges" lawi.ca. 04, 2017. Accesed 09 2017. https://lawi.ca/ |
Paul C. Weiler, 'Parliamentary Privileges' (lawi.ca 2017) <https://lawi.ca/> accesed 2017 September 23 |
Usage Metrics
19 ViewsGoogle Scholar: Search for Parliamentary Privileges Related Content
Schema Summary
- Article Name: Parliamentary Privileges
- Author: Paul C. Weiler
- Description: Concept of Parliamentary Privileges Definition of Parliamentary Privileges by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their [...]
This entry was last updated: July 6, 2017