Privilege / Impeding the House

January 19, 1984

Debates pp. 563-4

On January 18, 1984, Messrs. Deans (Hamilton Mountain) and Robinson (Burnaby) rose on questions of privilege to protest the actions of Mr. Kaplan (Solicitor General) who had had distributed advance copies of a bill at a press lock-up session where access was refused to Members of Parliament. Mr. Speaker noted that since there was no matter presently before the House on which the Chair could rule, the matter was hypothetical. On the following day, after the introduction and first reading of the bill in question, the two Members elaborated on the reasons for their questions of privilege, namely, that a bill cannot be distributed in advance of having been introduced in the House and that Members should not be refused access to lock-up press briefings within the Parliamentary precincts. The Speaker ruled immediately.

Issue

Does the distribution of an advance copy of a bill at a press lock-up or the refusal to permit Members to have access to a lock-up constitute a prima facie question of privilege?

Decision

No. There is no prima facie case of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

There are many cases where drafts of bills have been circulated and no further action has been taken with regard to them. The Chair cannot be placed in a position of determining whether a draft of a bill, which may or may not be introduced, can be circulated, or to whom it can be circulated. As regards the second point, the Chair recognizes that parties represented in the House may request rooms for functions which have limited access. Under these circumstances, the Speaker cannot undertake to decide who should have access to briefings hosted by the different parties. Since the Hon. Member is under no obligation in fulfilling his duties as a Member of Parliament to attend such an event, it is difficult to see how being denied access is a question of privilege.