PARLIAMENT of CANADA
House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 EditionMore information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

3. Privileges and Immunities

[351] 
See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1996, p. 666; March 14, 1996, pp. 680-1.
[352] 
See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 13, 1996, p. 9; March 10, 1998, p. 13.
[353] 
See, for example, Journals, October 24, 1966, pp. 915-6; March 21, 1978, pp. 525-6; December 7, 1978, pp. 228-9; February 20, 1984, pp. 188-9.
[354] 
For the House to give penal powers to committees would be an extension of the privileges of the House requiring legislation. See United Kingdom, House of Commons, Select Committee on Procedure, 1977-78, First Report, Vol. I, Appendix C, “Powers of Select Committees to Send for Persons, Papers and Records (PPR)”, Memorandum by the Clerk of the House, p. 26, para. 55.
[355] 
See, for example, Debates, June 30, 1987, p. 7822; December 9, 1987, p. 11628; April 2, 1990, pp. 10074-6; November 28, 1990, pp. 15854-5; June 19, 1991, p. 2070; November 7, 1991, pp. 4772-3; May 18, 1995, p. 12760; September 16, 1996, pp. 4233-4; December 9, 1997, p. 2945.
[356] 
See, for example, Journals, April 26, 1878, pp. 218-20; August 27, 1891, p. 454; September 1, 1891, p. 467; September 24, 1891, p. 532; June 7, 1894, p. 242; June 11, 1894, p. 288; June 13, 1894, pp. 298-300; November 22, 1990, pp. 2280-1.
[357] 
See, for example, Journals, August 12, 1891, p. 402; August 13, 1891, p. 407; August 18, 1891, p. 414; August 19, 1891, p. 417; September 29, 1891, p. 561; May 30, 1906, p. 316; June 1, 1906, p. 323; June 4, 1906, pp. 331-3; July 3, 1906, pp. 475-6; March 27, 1907, p. 371; April 4, 1907, pp. 388-9; February 14, 1913, p. 249; February 17, 1913, p. 254; February 18, 1913, pp. 266-7; February 20, 1913, pp. 274-8.
[358] 
See, for example, Journals, June 5, 1891, p. 205; June 16, 1891, pp. 211-2; December 19, 1990, p. 2508; February 28, 1991, p. 2638; May 17, 1991, p. 42; May 29, 1991, pp. 92-9.
[359] 
See, for example, Journals, May 1, 1868, pp. 267-8; May 2, 1868, p. 271; May 10, 1873, pp. 317-8; May 12, 1873, pp. 327-8.
[360] 
See, for example, Journals, April 28, 1987, p. 791; May 14, 1987, p. 917; December 18, 1987, pp. 2014-6.
[361] 
See Chapter 20, “Committees”. See also Maingot, 2nd ed., pp. 221-2.
[362] 
In the 1987 case involving John Parry (Kenora–Rainy River), the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development met in camera to deal with the matter as noted in its Third Report to the House. See Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Third Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 28, 1987, Issue No. 25, p. 3. See also Journals, April 28, 1987, p. 791.
[363] 
The Third Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, concerning the disclosure of in camera proceedings of the Committee, presented to the House on April 28, 1987, serves as an excellent model of such a report. Having described the events, the Report concluded: “Your Committee feels it is their duty to place these matters before you at this time since privilege may be involved and to give the House an opportunity to reflect on these matters.” See Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Third Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 28, 1987, Issue No. 25, p. 3. See also Journals, April 28, p. 791.
[364] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, May 14, 1987, p. 6108.
[365] 
Standing Order 48(2). On April 28, 1987, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development presented its Third Report, relating to the disclosure of in camera proceedings, to the House during Routine Proceedings. The question of privilege based on that report was raised the same day immediately after Question Period. See Debates, April 28, 1987, pp. 5299, 5329.
[366] 
Debates, May 14, 1987, p. 6110.
[367]
See above for the procedure for dealing with questions of privilege in the House.
[368]
See Chapter 10, “The Daily Program” for the procedures for concurring in committee reports.
[369]
For a description of the functioning of a Committee of the Whole, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[370] 
See, for example, Debates, April 30, 1964, p. 2782; October 29, 1964, pp. 9561-2; June 2, 1966, pp. 5908-9.
[371] 
An example of such a situation occurred on April 30, 1964. In a Committee of the Whole, Lawrence Kindt (Macleod) rose on a question of privilege which, he stated, affected every Member of the House. The question of privilege concerned remarks made by the Minister of Transport (Walter Pickersgill) outside the House which the Member claimed should have been made in the House. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole pointed out that the Member could only raise such a question of privilege when the Speaker was in the Chair. Another Member, Erik Nielsen (Yukon), then moved that the Committee rise and report progress and seek leave to sit again in order that Mr. Kindt might raise his question of privilege. The Committee adopted the motion, the Chairman rose, reported progress, and Mr. Kindt presented his question of privilege. The Deputy Speaker ruled that the matter was not a prima facie question of privilege and the House then went back into a Committee of the Whole. See Debates, April 30, 1964, pp. 2782-3.
[372] 
See, for example, Debates, November 23, 1970, p. 1373; November 8, 1971, p. 9435; October 23, 1974, p. 665; May 22, 1975, pp. 6012-3; December 20, 1983, pp. 379-90.
[373] 
Standing Order 12. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[374] 
A question of privilege was raised in a Committee of the Whole in 1987 by John Nunziata (York South–Weston) who rose to complain that a Member had assaulted him because he was not in his own seat. He requested an apology, but the Member refused. Although the Chairman advised that he would report on the matter to the full House, only the bill under consideration in the Committee was reported later that day (Journals, October 15, 1987, pp. 1688-9). The following day, Mr. Nunziata raised his question of privilege in the House. The Member about whom Mr. Nunziata had complained rose in the House and apologized to Mr. Nunziata and to the House, and the Speaker declared the matter closed (Debates, October 15, 1987, p. 10064; October 16, 1987, pp. 10089-90).
[375] 
Although from a Standing Committee, the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 28, 1987, can serve as a model for a report on a privilege matter. Having described the events, the Report concluded: “Your Committee feels it is their duty to place these matters before you at this time since privilege may be involved and to give the House the opportunity to reflect on these matters” (Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Third Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 28, 1987, Issue No. 25, p. 3). See also Journals, April 28, 1987, p. 791.
[376]
See above for the procedure for dealing with questions of privilege in the House.
[377] 
See Debates, June 12, 1980, pp. 2030-1; December 20, 1983, pp. 364-9. In the 1983 instance, a Member argued that because the Committee had risen and reported progress, the House was apprised of the circumstances surrounding the question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that the Committee had only risen, reported progress and asked for leave to sit again. The Committee had not reported the bill nor any concerns to the House.
[378] 
Standing Orders 48(2), 54 and 56(1).
[379] 
Standing Orders 48(2), 86(2) and 87.
[380] 
Standing Order 48(2).
[381] 
Journals, April 15, 1874, p. 64. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 304-5.
[382] 
Debates, April 5, 1886, p. 488.
[383] 
Debates, March 18, 1892, cols. 245-9; March 21, 1892, cols. 287-9; April 6, 1892, cols. 1032-5.
[384] 
See, for example, Debates, April 25, 1877, p. 1810; May 11, 1891, cols. 156-7.
[385] 
Debates, March 3, 1911, cols. 4566-7.
[386] 
Debates, February 8, 1932, p. 8.
[387] 
See, for example, Debates, May 22, 1924, p. 2401.
[388] 
Debates, June 16, 1959, p. 4761.
[389] 
Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 581-6.
[390] 
See Order Paper and Notice Paper, February 28, 1996, p. VI. Mr. Boudria’s motion was designated Private Members’ Notice of Motion M-1.
[391] 
Debates, May 9, 1996, pp. 2523-4.
[392] 
Debates, June 18, 1996, p. 4028.
[393] 
Debates, June 18, 1996, p. 4028.
[394] 
Debates, June 18, 1996, pp. 4029-31.
[395] 
Debates, June 20, 1996, pp. 4183-4.
[396] 
Debates, October 23, 1996, p. 5630. See also Journals, October 23, 1996, p. 768.
[397] 
See Maingot, 2nd ed., pp. 267-9.
[398] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, Seventh Report, presented to the House on December 18, 1987, Journals, pp. 2014-6; Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Twenty-Fourth Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 7, 1991, Issue No. 39, pp. 3-8; Standing Committee on House Management, Sixty-Fifth Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 18, 1993, Issue No. 46, pp. 7-11.
[399] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Twenty-Second Report, Minutes of Proceedings, June 18, 1996, Issue No. 1, pp. 46-55; Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Twenty-Ninth Report, presented to the House on April 27, 1998, Journals, p. 706.
[400] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Twenty-Fourth Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 7, 1991, Issue No. 39, pp. 3-8. In the case involving John Parry (Kenora–Rainy River), following the presentation of the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure on December 18, 1987, which criticized the Member but called for no punishment, Mr. Parry rose in the House and apologized for his actions (see Debates, December 18, 1987, p. 11951).


Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page