Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Member’s right to sit in the House of Commons: inquiry as to course of action to follow upon announcement of conviction of a Member of Parliament on charges of fraud

December 11, 1992

Debates, pp. 15083-4

On December 10, 1992, Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbinière) was found guilty of fraud, false pretence and fraud in relation to his functions as a Member and was scheduled to be sentenced on January 25, 1993.

On December 11, 1992, Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops) rose on a question of privilege concerning the news of Mr. Tremblay’s conviction for misuse of House of Commons funds. Mr. Riis claimed that in cases where Members are convicted in court, the expectation is that the Member should resign his or her seat, and he requested information from the Government as to whether the Member had already resigned. He also asserted that it was House tradition to have convicted Members disciplined by the House in addition to the discipline “meted out by the courts”, and he sought the Speaker’s guidance as to the course of action to be taken.

The Rt. Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs) suggested that it would be appropriate to allow the court processes to be carried through to their conclusion and remarked upon the importance of respecting the difference between the political function of the House and the functions of the court. Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) informed the House that as sentencing in the case would not occur until the new year and as an appeal might be pending, it would not be appropriate to proceed with the matter at the present time. Mr. Riis rose again to clarify that he was not advocating hasty action; rather he was seeking clarification as to the correct course of action to follow.^[1]

The Speaker addressed the matter immediately and his words are reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The honourable Member for Kamloops has raised a matter which of course is of importance to this House. The right honourable minister has responded on the government side and the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond on behalf of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

The matter raised is the announcement of the conviction of a Member of Parliament for certain offenses.

There is a convention which I expect would be followed. That is that the court will inform the Chair officially of what has transpired. I do not anticipate receiving that this morning or maybe not even for some days.

The other matter referred to is the question of an appeal. I am not in a position, nor I suppose are honourable colleagues, to know whether an appeal would be taken. I think we should look carefully at that.

Again, we do not know what is likely to transpire at the sentencing or what arguments may be used by the defence at that time, all of which would affect whatever action this place might ultimately take.

We had a matter like this some years ago. Honourable Members will remember that I took the matter under advisement to consider my position and to consider what was appropriate under the circumstances. As it turned out, the matter was resolved without the necessity of the Chair having to make any ruling at all.

On May 23, 1989, Mr. Richard Grisé (Chambly) pleaded guilty to and was convicted of various charges of fraud and breach of trust. On May 25, Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Kingsway) rose on a question of privilege to argue that Mr. Grisé should be expelled from the House of Commons since his actions constituted a contempt of the House. The Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West) spoke in support of that argument while the Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) argued that the question of privilege had been raised prematurely, since either Mr. Grisé or the Crown could still appeal the terms of probation or the fine. The Chair noted that while it had anticipated and already considered many of the arguments presented, it was appropriate under the circumstances to reserve on the matter.^[2] On May 30, 1989, the Speaker announced a vacancy in the electoral district of Chambly and read out Mr. Grisé’s letter of resignation to the House^[3].

However, the honourable Member for Kamloops has, as he said, brought this matter to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. If I understood him correctly, he is not suggesting that the House should take any sudden action today, but when it is appropriate under all the circumstances.

I will take the application of the honourable Member under advisement. As soon as I am in a position to advise the House further I shall do so.

The matter was not raised in the House again.

F0133-e

34-3

1992-12-11