Parliamentary Privilege

Introduction

The House collectively and Members of Parliament individually enjoy certain rights and immunities without which Members could not carry out their duties and the House could not fulfill its constitutional role. These various rights and immunities are referred to as parliamentary privilege.

Whenever Members feel a contempt against the House has been committed or that their rights as Members have been infringed upon, they rise on a question of privilege to voice their complaints. In presenting their case, Members are claiming that the breach they are complaining of is of such importance that it demands priority over all other House business. It is the role of the Speaker to judge if that claim is well founded; that is, if, on a prima facie basis or as far as can be judged by first disclosure, it deserves immediate consideration.

In order to assess the claim, the Speaker first hears a description of the problem from the Member raising the question of privilege. The Speaker also hears comments from other Members, as Speaker Scheer often did. While, in theory, debate on a question of privilege properly begins only after the Speaker has decided that a prima facie question of privilege exists, in practice, there is usually extensive discussion beforehand. Formal debate on a question of privilege can properly begin only if the Speaker has decided that a prima facie question of privilege exists. In reaching such a decision, the Speaker reviews the facts and the arguments presented by Members, as well as the relevant rules, authorities, and precedents. The Speaker’s decision may also consider factors other than the merits of the case itself, such as the terms of the motion the Member seeks to move to remedy the situation, whether the issue was raised at the first opportunity, whether the notice, if required, was given, and whether the question was raised at the appropriate time during the proceedings. In the vast majority of questions of privilege, the Speaker decides that a prima facie case has not been made. This was also true during Speaker Scheer’s tenure.

Speaker Scheer rendered more than 50 decisions on matters related to parliamentary privilege. This chapter includes 30 of these decisions, which are grouped into three categories: those relating to the rights of the House, those relating to the rights of individual Members and one relating to procedure for dealing with matters of privilege. The decisions are listed by order of date delivered within groupings of like subject-matter headings.

With regard to the collective rights of the House, there were several prima facie questions of privilege concerning matters of contempt. These included questions on the right of two Members with disputed electoral campaign returns to sit and vote in the House; a motion to suspend a Member from sitting and voting after a conviction on several counts of violating the Canada Elections Act; and allegations that the Prime Minister, a Minister, and Members had deliberately misled the House.

The chapter then focuses on the individual rights of Members. Those questions of privilege found prima facie were argued from the perspective that Members had been impeded in carrying out their duties. One question arose from a cyber-campaign against a Minister, which seemingly attempted to intimidate him with respect to proceedings in Parliament. There were also three questions of privilege found prima facie concerning the denial of access to the Parliamentary Precinct to a Member or Members, once during a state visit, and twice more during routine security checks.