The House and its Members / Caucus

Alleged violation of the Parliament of Canada Act; caucus expulsion

April 8, 2019

Debates, p. 26787

On March 22, 2019, John Nater (Perth—Wellington) rose on a question of privilege regarding an alleged violation of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act. He explained that, pursuant to the provisions added to the Parliament of Canada Act in 2015, caucuses have a legal obligation to conduct certain votes at their first meeting following a general election. One of these votes determines whether section 49.2 of the act, which addresses the process for expelling a member from the caucus, will apply to them. Citing media reports that the Liberal Party had not conducted the votes required by section 49.8 of the act, Mr. Nater contended that the recent removal of Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby) from the Liberal caucus had not been voluntary and that her rights had been violated. He asked that the House be allowed to deal with the matter, given the lack of legal recourse for members in this area, the limited authority of Speakers to interpret the law, and the right of the House to manage its proceedings and internal affairs.^[1] The Deputy Speaker (Bruce Stanton) reminded members that matters involving caucus proceedings are generally not within the purview of the Chair, but he indicated that the Chair would deliver a ruling to the House.^[2]

On April 1, 2019, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) claimed that Ms. Caesar-Chavannes had resigned of her own volition and argued that the Speaker cannot rule on the legal nature of a given question. He concluded that the issue was a matter of debate rather than a question of privilege.^[3]

Resolution

The Deputy Speaker delivered his ruling on April 8, 2019. He ruled that expelling a member from a caucus was not a proper subject for a question of privilege and that it was not the Speaker’s role to interpret or enforce statutes. The Deputy Speaker also explained that the Parliament of Canada Act provides only that the Chair be informed of the results of any vote taken by a caucus to formally expel a member and that, to his knowledge, Ms. Caesar-Chavannes had not been expelled but rather had withdrawn. The Chair therefore ruled that there was no prima facie question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2019, by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington concerning an apparent violation of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and a number of other members also contributed to the discussion on this alleged question of privilege.

In raising this matter, the member for Perth—Wellington explained the meaning of certain provisions added to the Parliament of Canada Act in 2015. As a result, caucuses are legally obligated to conduct certain votes at their first meeting after a federal election, one of which is to confirm whether section 49.2 of the act, which stipulates the process for expelling a member from caucus, will apply.

The member for Perth—Wellington concluded by asking that the House be allowed to deal with this matter, given the lack of judicial recourse offered to members in this regard and the generally accepted limited authority of Speakers to interpret the law.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader contended that, as the member for Whitby confirmed that her resignation was in fact voluntary, the requirement of timeliness for a question of privilege had been disregarded, and the Speaker cannot adjudicate on the legality of matters, the issue was a matter of debate, rather than a question of privilege.

With respect to this specific case, there are a few points that need to be clarified. I will deal with them in reverse order.

One, asking the House to deal with the possible expulsion of a member from caucus is not a proper subject for a question of privilege. If the member believes that the House needs to put in place certain practices, perhaps by way of additional Standing Orders, this should be done through a substantive motion following proper notice.

Two, as was pointed out, I as Speaker … have no role in the interpretation of statute nor in the conduct of these 2015 provisions. All that is allowed under subsection 49.8(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act is that I shall be informed of the results of any vote taken by a caucus to formally expel a Member within the terms of the Act.

Three, from the knowledge that I have, the hon. member for Whitby was not expelled. Instead, she voluntarily withdrew from the caucus to sit as an independent.

Based on this understanding and these facts, there is no question of privilege.

Postscript

On April 9, 2019, Jane Philpott (Markham—Stouffville) rose on a question of privilege concerning the alleged violation of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act as regards Liberal Party caucus expulsions and readmittances.^[4] On April 11, 2019, the Speaker delivered his ruling and reminded the House that his role was limited to being advised of the caucus decision on the expulsion or readmittance of a caucus member and to the internal affairs of the House, which does not extend to caucus matters.^[5] (Editor’s Note: the decision can be found on page 129).