House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

3. Privileges and Immunities

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[401]: See, for example, Standing Committee on House Management, Sixty-Fifth Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 18, 1993, Issue No. 46, pp. 7-11, which recommended that the Speaker write a letter to the CBC and a named individual advising them of the content of the report; Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Sixty-Sixth Report, presented to the House on April 14, 1999, Journals, p. 1714, Sessional Paper No. 8510-361-152, which suggested improvements for handling demonstrations around the parliamentary precinct and other parliamentary buildings (see especially paras. 16-23).
[402]: See, for example, the motion for concurrence in the Sixty-Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, adopted on February 25, 1993 (Debates, p. 16440); the motion for concurrence in the Twenty-Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, debated in the House on June 20, 1996, superseded by a motion to adjourn the debate and transferred to Government Business on the Order Paper (see Journals, pp. 592-3); the motion for concurrence in the Twenty-Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, adopted on a recorded division (see Journals, May 5, 1998, pp. 744-5). See also Journals, April 29, 1998, p. 722.
[403]: See also Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[404]: Debates, November 21, 1990, p. 15526.
[405]: In 1996, Speaker Parent advised the House that Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg) would be rising to make a solemn declaration to the House. The Speaker cautioned Members that the statement was not to incite debate. The Speaker subsequently interrupted Mr. Jacob and ruled that “the words being used [in the statement] tend more toward a debate than a solemn declaration”. The Member was not allowed to continue (see Debates, June 18, 1996, p. 4027). See also Debates, May 11, 1989, pp. 1571-3, when a Minister rose on a matter of personal privilege to clarify a statement he had made the previous day. Following the statement of the Minister, the Speaker recognized the critic from the Official Opposition to respond to the statement. However, when the Minister began to engage in a debate with the opposition Member, the Speaker closed off the remarks and advised the House that Members could seek further information from the Minister on another occasion.
[406]: Debates, March 17, 1997, p. 9060.
[407]: See, for example, Debates, June 13, 1977, pp. 6584-5; October 8, 1987, p. 9827; June 18, 1996, p. 4027.
[408]: See, for example, Debates, May 11, 1989, pp. 1571-3.
[409]: See Debates, December 18, 1987, pp. 11950-1; March 19, 1991, p. 18710; October 9, 1991, pp. 3515-6; January 24, 1994, p. 197; October 31, 1996, pp. 5948-9; April 28, 1999, p. 14448.
[410]: See, for example, Debates, November 26, 1992, pp. 14113-5.
[411]: See, for example, Debates, November 21, 1990, pp. 15526-8; March 17, 1997, pp. 9059-60.
[412]: See, for example, Debates, March 15, 1984, pp. 2138-9; May 12, 1986, p. 13149; February 3, 1988, p. 12581.
[413]: See Debates, January 26, 1990, p. 7495; December 12, 1990, pp. 16635-6; May 27, 1991, p. 610.