Private Members’ Business / Miscellaneous

February 26, 1992

Debates, p. 7624

On February 26, 1992, Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona) rose on a question of privilege to protest the decision taken by a legislative committee on February 18, 1992 to adjourn sine die its consideration of Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (terminally ill persons ).^[1] The Member noted that this unusual procedure effectively precluded any further consideration of the Bill by the legislative committee or by the House. Noting that Bill C-203 was a Private Members' Public Bill, Mr. Thorkelson went on to say that such actions could render meaningless the recent initiatives in parliamentary reform aiming to empower individual Members and to improve chances of success for private Members' legislation. He felt that the legislative committee was in contempt of the House and that his privileges and those of all Members had been breached.^[2] After hearing from several other Members, including Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland—St. Catherines—Thorold) in his role as Chairman of the legislative committee,^[3] the Speaker delivered his ruling.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: [...] I am fully aware of the implications of this particular situation. Some honourable Members have said they had no knowledge this was coming before the House. I hope all honourable Members realize that when I receive a question of privilege, that is the privilege of the Member applying until the Member has risen. I know there was no suggestion the Chair should have communicated with Members, but I hope all Members will know it would have been quite improper for the Chair to do so.

I compliment the honourable Member for Edmonton—Strathcona on his argument and I compliment him on how concise it was. It was brief and to the point. I have listened with great care to the honourable Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Robert Wenman) who of course has a very strong personal interest in this particular matter.

The first thing I have to look at, and the [honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Albert Cooper)] mentioned it, is that it is not for the Chair to get involved in matters within a committee unless there is something so egregious and so outrageous that it transcends the normal bounds and amounts to a contempt of the House or, in some extraordinary way, a breach of the privilege of an honourable Member and this does not.

First of all, does it affect any honourable Members' capacity to carry on their duties as Members of the House of Commons? The answer to that is no. All Members can carry on their duties as Members of the Houses of Commons. The second thing is whether there is some other procedural approach that might be taken to deal with this matter in front of the whole House, as my honourable friend from Kamloops (Mr. Nelson Riis) has suggested. Yes, there is. A motion can be put down.

I go back very briefly to a citation which the honourable Member for Edmonton—Strathcona cited. I think I have the exact words: "The House should take cognizance of the matter".

That is really where we are. If the House wishes to take cognizance of this, if the House wishes to exercise its authority, then of course it may do so. But in my view, it would not be correct or proper at the present time for the Speaker to intervene.

F1005-e

34-3

1992-02-26