Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

March 9, 1998

Debates, p. 4566

On February 26, 1998, Michel Gauthier (Roberval) rose on a point of order regarding the conduct of certain members who, he claimed, had used the Canadian flag and the national anthem “in a demonstration aimed at causing disorder, preventing [a fellow member] from exercising the right to speak and disregarding the Speaker’s orders when Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) was speaking.^[1] The Acting Speaker (Ian McClelland) ruled at the time that the waving of the flag was “unparliamentary” and requested members to refrain from using the flag in this way. Following Oral Questions on March 9, 1998, before the Speaker had handed down a decision on Mr. Gauthier’s point of order, Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) raised a question of privilege concerning certain statements attributed to members of the House appearing in an article of the Ottawa Sun newspaper of March 8, 1998, which, in his view, constituted an attempt to intimidate the Speaker of the House, and collectively the House itself. Mr. MacKay claimed that certain members had made statements quoted in the article on matters that were still before the Chair for adjudication and were attempting to influence the Speaker’s ruling on the point of order raised by Mr. Gauthier. After the intervention of other members and giving the members referred to in the article an opportunity to clarify the situation, the Speaker suspended the sitting for 25 minutes. When the sitting resumed, the Speaker gave his ruling on the question of privilege raised by Mr. MacKay.^[2]

The Speaker found that there was a prima facie case of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: My colleagues, I thank you for your indulgence. I have sought advice and I have considered the matter that is before us today. It is very important that the House be seized with this matter.

I find a prima facie case and I am going to permit the honourable House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to put his motion. After the motion has been put we will begin debate until we have ceased debating.

Mr. MacKay then moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Debate arose. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley) proposed an amendment to the motion that the Speaker ruled out of. order. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf) then moved an amendment to the motion, that the Speaker ruled in order. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas) then moved the adjournment of the debate, which was adopted.^[3] On March 10, 1998, debate resumed on the motion of Mr. MacKay and both the amendment and the main motion, as amended, were adopted on recorded divisions.^[4] The Speaker never ruled on the point of order of Mr. Gauthier.

On April 27, 1998, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its 29th Report.^[5] In the report, the committee indicated that after hearing the testimony of the five members referred to in the article, the committee had determined that the statements attributed to the members were not intended to be contemptuous of the House or the Speaker. It concluded that they did not bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and the Speaker. On April 29, 1998, the House adopted a special order that a motion for concurrence in the report of the committee be deemed put and that a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until May 5, 1998.^[6] On May 5, the report was concurred in on a recorded division.^[7]

P0103-e

36-1

1998-03-09