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

[301]: Journals, May 29, 1990, pp. 1775-6.
[302]: Journals, June 1, 1990, pp. 1797-804.
[303]: Journals, June 1, 1990, pp. 1798-9.
[304]: Journals, June 26, 1990, p. 1956.
[305]: These provisions were incorporated into the Act as sections 52.6 to 52.9. See the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2.
[306]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (s. 52.5(1)). Such by-laws must be tabled by the Speaker within 30 days (s. 52.5(2)). “Parliamentary functions” include duties and activities related to the position of Member of the House of Commons wherever performed and includes public and official matters and partisan political activity. The Board may also issue general opinions regarding the proper use of funds, goods, services and premises (s. 52.8).
[307]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (s. 52.6(1)).
[308]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (s. 52.6(2)).
[309]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (s. 52.7(1)).
[310]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (ss. 52.7(1), 52.9(4)).
[311]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (s. 52.9(1)).
[312]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (ss. 52.7(2) and (4)). Criminal process is defined as wiretap authorizations, search warrants, seize or freeze orders relating to the proceeds of crime and the laying of criminal charges (see s. 52.7(3)).
[313]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (ss. 52.9(2) and (3)).
[314]: Ho Quong v. Cuddy (1914) 7 Western Weekly Reports, pp. 797-802 (Alta C.A).
[315]: Re: Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1947), 89 C.C.C. 196, 4 C.R. 162 (Ont. H.C.), in Canadian Criminal Procedure, 6^th ed., edited by Justice R.E. Salhany, Aurora: Canada Law Book Inc., 1998, paras. 3.1250, 3.1330. See generally Delisle and Stuart, Learning Canadian Criminal Procedure, 2^nd ed., Carswell, 1991, pp. 57-92.
[316]: Maingot, 2^nd ed., p. 217.
[317]: See also Maingot, 2^nd ed., pp. 217-70.
[318]: Standing Order 48(1).
[319]: This is based on recommendations in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975, and concurred in by the House on March 24, 1975. See Journals, March 14, 1975, pp. 372-6; March 24, 1975, p. 399; April 14, 1975, p. 441. See also Debates, April 19, 1983, pp. 24624-6; December 20, 1983, p. 355. See also Chapter 11, “Questions”.
[320]: Debates, December 17, 1990, p. 16830.
[321]: Debates, April 30, 1964, pp. 2799-802; November 25, 1985, p. 8795. See also Chapter 11, “Questions”.
[322]: Debates, April 12, 1962, p. 2909.
[323]: See Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1995, p. 17392.
[324]: For example, Jesse Flis (Parkdale–High Park) raised a question of privilege concerning the behaviour of Ian Waddell (Port Moody–Coquitlam) who interfered with the Mace upon the adjournment of the House on October 30, 1991. At the next meeting of the House on October 31, 1991, the Speaker recognized Mr. Flis on a question of privilege immediately following Prayers. See Debates, October 30, 1991, pp. 4269-70; October 31, 1991, p. 4271.
[325]: See, for example, Debates, March 22, 1971, p. 4451; March 7, 1972, p. 591; April 27, 1972, p. 1675; December 17, 1990, p. 16830.
[326]: See, for example, Debates, March 10, 1966, p. 2477; February 18, 1982, p. 15144; March 18, 1982, p. 15557; May 12, 1982, p. 17338; May 19, 1982, p. 17596; October 31, 1986, pp. 955-6; March 2, 1995, p. 10273; December 7, 1995, p. 17392.
[327]: See, for example, Debates, May 20, 1982, p. 17643.
[328]: See Speakers’ comments, Debates, April 4, 1973, p. 2947; February 18, 1982, p. 15144; May 20, 1982, p. 17643.
[329]: See, for example, Debates, February 17, 1999, pp. 12011-2.
[330]: May, 15^th ed., p. 365. See, for example, Speakers’ rulings rejecting questions of privilege because they were not raised at the earliest opportunity: Debates, May 10, 1966, pp. 4923-4; October 12, 1966, pp. 8553-5; November 28, 1967, pp. 4773-4; June 9, 1969, pp. 9899-900; September 27, 1971, p. 8174. In 1983, Speaker Sauvé did allow a Member (Bill Domm (Peterborough)) to raise a question of privilege, even though the Member could have raised the matter earlier (see Debates, October 4, 1983, pp. 27726-7; October 12, 1983, pp. 27944-5).
[331]: See, for example, Debates, February 15, 1985, pp. 2398-9; April 23, 1990, pp. 10528-30; October 12, 1990, pp. 14106-10; October 15, 1990, pp. 14148-9; October 18, 1990, pp. 14367-8; February 24, 1993, pp. 16393-4; September 30, 1997, pp. 293-5; February 1, 1999, p. 11174; April 26, 1999, pp. 14326-7.
[332]: See, for example, the questions of privilege raised by John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast), Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon–Humboldt), Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton–Melville) and Roy Bailey (Souris–Moose Mountain) concerning picket lines blocking access to Parliament Hill and entrances to certain buildings on February 17, 1999 (Debates, pp. 12009-12).
[333]: See, for example, Debates, March 9, 1972, p. 661; February 1, 1973, p. 850.
[334]: See, for example, Debates, February 17, 1999, pp. 12009-10; April 26, 1999, pp. 14326-7.
[335]: Debates, March 31, 1981, pp. 8800-6.
[336]: See, for example, Debates, February 7, 1990, p. 7953; March 12, 1996, pp. 561-2.
[337]: See, for example, Debates, May 23, 1989, pp. 2051-2; September 24, 1990, pp. 13216-7; June 13, 1991, pp. 1644-6; December 8, 1992, pp. 14807-8; June 10, 1994, pp. 5160-1; November 16, 1998, pp. 10020-1.
[338]: See, for example, the questions of privilege raised by Jag Bhaduria (Markham–Whitchurch–Stouffville) on February 15, 1994 (Debates, pp. 1387-8); February 23, 1994 (withdrawn by the Member, Debates, p. 1728); and March 23, 1994 (reintroduced by Mr. Bhaduria, Debates, p. 2677); and the Speaker’s ruling on March 24, 1994 (Debates, pp. 2705-6). See also the questions of privilege raised by Judy Wasylycia–Leis (Winnipeg North Centre) on October 1, 1997 (Debates, pp. 336-7, and the Speaker’s ruling on October 9, 1997, Debates, pp. 689-90); and on November 25, 1997 (Debates, pp. 2190-1, and the Speaker’s ruling on December 4, 1997, Debates, pp. 2695-6).
[339]: “Until the motion is actually put to the House, the House is not seized of it, and therefore, the Member may amend or withdraw his proposed motion without the consent of the House” (Maingot, 2^nd ed., p. 261).
[340]: In the Allan Lawrence (Northumberland–Durham) case in December 1978, there was a difference between the first motion proposed and the one actually moved in the House (see Debates, November 3, 1978, p. 780; December 6, 1978, p. 1857). In October 1990, Albert Cooper (Peace River) proposed to move a motion which implicated another Member in a demonstration in the public gallery of the House. When Speaker Fraser ruled on the matter some days later, he stated that because the accused Member had denied any advance knowledge of the demonstration, the Chair could not find a question of privilege in that respect. However, the Speaker allowed that, without the reference to the Member, the matter of the demonstration would be a prima facie question of privilege. Mr. Cooper changed his motion which was then adopted by the House. See Debates, October 18, 1990, p. 14360; November 6, 1990, pp. 15177-81.
[341]: In the Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon–Humboldt) case in February 1999, concerning the obstruction of Members by picket lines blocking the entrances to parliamentary buildings, the motion proposed by Mr. Pankiw, following Speaker Parent’s ruling that there was a prima facie question of privilege, differed substantially from what the Member had raised in his submission. With the Speaker’s assistance, Mr. Pankiw rephrased the motion which was then moved and adopted by the House. See Debates, February 17, 1999, pp. 12011-2.
[342]: Debates, April 19, 1977, p. 4766. See also Maingot, 2^nd ed., pp. 260-1. For examples of the wording of some privilege motions, see Maingot, 2^nd ed., pp. 261-2.
[343]: In March 1966 during the Munsinger affair, having ruled that Douglas Harkness (Calgary North) did have a prima facie question of privilege, Speaker Lamoureux ruled out of order the motion proposed by the Member condemning the behaviour of the Minister of Justice. Other motions proposed by other Members were also ruled out of order because they were couched in terms which were too general or because they were substantive motions requiring notice. Speaker Lamoureux more than once pointed out that it was Canadian practice to refer such matters to committee for study and suggested that this should be the avenue pursued. It was not, however, and no motions were put to the House. See Journals, March 10 to March 15, 1966, pp. 267-93. See also Maingot, 2^nd ed., p. 263.
[344]: Standing Order 43.
[345]: Standing Order 20.
[346]: Debates, May 25, 1956, p. 4348.
[347]: See Debates, May 17, 1894, cols. 2931-3; July 22, 1903, cols. 7095-103; March 6, 1911, cols. 4645-56; May 22, 1924, pp. 2401-7. In 1996, Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg) was present in the House during debate on the motion concerning his behaviour. He voted on a motion to adjourn the debate (see Division List No. 7, Debates, March 12, 1996, pp. 566-7), made a comment recorded in Hansard (Debates, March 13, 1996, p. 673) and voted on the motion that the debate not be further adjourned (see Division List No. 10, Debates, March 14, 1996, pp. 680-1).
[348]: See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1996, pp. 635-48, 674-8; March 14, 1996, pp. 679-80, 703-16; March 10, 1998, pp. 4591-4.
[349]: During the proceedings on the Jacob case on March 13, 1996, Jim Hart (Okanagan–Similkameen–Merritt) challenged the acceptability of an amendment stating that it was “trying to completely gut the spirit of the motion”. The Speaker ruled the amendment procedurally in order (Debates, March 13, 1996, p. 649).
[350]: See, for example, Debates, March 12, 1996, pp. 566-7.