25. Appendices

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 Erskine May’s 14^th 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.

The following chart includes all cases of privilege since 1958 that were ruled prima facie by the Speaker.

[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 Mr. 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 Mr. Lewis or the Speaker.

[5]

On April 28, 1987, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development tabled their Third Report concerning the disclosure of the results of a vote held during an in camera meeting by Mr. Parry.

[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 Mr. 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.  Mr. 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]

Mr. Tremblay withdrew the offending remarks on March 25, 1993 (Debates, p. 17537).

[12]

The document was tabled on February 25, 1993.  The Speaker ruled prima facie on this question of privilege as well as that of Mr. 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 he ruled on the question of privilege raised by Derek Lee concerning the late tabling of a Customs Tariff Order.  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 Mr. Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast), following which other Members raised related concerns.

[18]

The House voted to suspend Mr. 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 2nd session of the 37th Parliament was prorogued before theStanding Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could complete its report to the House. In the 3rd session of the 37th Parliament, Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton–Melville) moved that the matter be referred again to committee.

[20]

Following the Speaker’s ruling, Mr. 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 Mr. Radwanski. In light of the tabling, Mr. Lee (Scarborough–Rouge River) 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]

Both of the May 3, 2005, and the May 10, 2005 prima facie cases of privilege were addressed in the same report presented by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on June 22, 2005.