Parliamentary Privilege

Introduction

Members of Parliament, both collectively and individually, enjoy certain rights and immunities. The purpose of these rights and immunities is to assist the House and members in fulfilling the constitutional role and duties assigned to them. These rights and immunities are referred to collectively as parliamentary privilege.

Whenever members feel that a contempt against the House has been committed or that their rights as members have been infringed, they may rise in the House on a question of privilege. In so doing, members are submitting to the House that the breach they are reporting is of such importance that it demands priority over all other House business. It is the role of the Speaker to judge whether, on a prima facie basis, or as far as can be judged by first disclosure, the matter deserves such 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 may also hear comments from other members, as Speaker Regan often chose to do. Formal debate can begin only if the Speaker accepts that a breach of privilege appears (prima facie) to have taken place. In order to come to this position, the Speaker reviews the facts and the arguments presented by members, as well as the relevant rules, authorities and precedents. The Speaker’s decision also considers 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 appropriate opportunity, and whether notice, if required, was given. On the vast majority of questions of privilege, the Speaker will decide that a prima facie case of privilege cannot be found. Such remained the case during Speaker Regan’s tenure.

Speaker Regan made more than 40 decisions on matters related to parliamentary privilege. This chapter includes 32 of them. They 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 reviving a question of privilege. The decisions are listed chronologically, in order of date delivered, within each grouping of similar subject-matter headings.

With regard to the collective rights of the House, two instances were found to be prima facie questions of privilege. One arose from the government’s disclosure of the contents of a bill prior to its introduction in the House. Another involved online publications by the RCMP that presumed the adoption of a bill without acknowledgement that legislation had not yet received parliamentary approval.

The questions of privilege related to members’ individual rights were argued from the perspective that members had been impeded in carrying out their duties. One question arose from the manhandling and physical intimidation of members in the chamber. There was also a question of privilege found prima facie concerning a member’s denial of access to the parliamentary precinct on budget day.

Finally, and exceptionally, Speaker Regan allowed the resumption of debate on a prima facie question of privilege even after debate on it had been dropped from the Order Paper following a decision of the House to proceed to orders of the day.