• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

VOLUME 133 NUMBER 044 1st SESSION 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, March 24, 1994 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, March 24, 1994 The House met at 10 a.m. House thereon. This is clearly explained in Beauchesne 6th Edition, citation 26: _______________ (2) A question of privilege— is a question partly of fact and partly of law—the law of contempt of Parliament—and is a matter for the House to determine. The decision of the House on a question of privilege, like every other matter which the Prayers House has to decide, can be elicited only by a question put from the Chair by the Speaker and resolved either in the affirmative or in the negative, and this question is necessarily founded on a motion made by a Member. _______________ [Translation] [English] (3) It follows that though the Speaker can rule on a question of order, the Speaker cannot rule on a question of privilege. When a question of privilege is PRIVILEGE raised the Speaker’s function is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the motion, which the Member who has raised the question desires to move, to priority over the Orders of the Day. MEMBER FOR MARKHAM—WHITCHURCH—STOUFFVILLE—SPEAKER’S RULING [English] The Speaker: Yesterday the hon. member for Markham— In other words my duty as Speaker is to decide whether the Whitchurch—Stouffville rose in the House to address the ques- hon. member for Markham—Whitchurch—Stouffville has pres- tion of personal privilege which he previously raised on ented sufficient argument to convince me that debate on his February 15 and subsequently withdrew. The hon. member situation should take precedence over all other House business, claimed, at that time, that his ability to function as a member of and that the House should therefore consider the matter immedi- Parliament had been impeded. He shared with the House a series ately. of events relating to his academic credentials and qualifications, comments made about him by the media, as well as a threat by an In coming to my decision on this matter I have reviewed the anonymous telephone caller. decisions of many former Speakers. Speaker Jerome in dealing with a similar case on June 23, (1005) 1977 ruled that: Let me begin my ruling by defining for the House just what —the protection of an elected person against unwarranted or intemperate constitutes parliamentary privilege. Erskine May in Parliamen- publicity, even abuses or defamatory publicity, is precisely that which is tary Practice, 21st Edition, page 69, defines privilege as: enjoyed by every citizen before our courts. —The sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively— and [Translation] by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or He went on to add that: individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain As elected people we can and do expect to be the targets of attack. When those extent an exemption from the general law. Certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual attacks seem offensive I think it is appropriate the Hon. Member is offered the Members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its courtesy of the House to extend to his hon. colleagues an explanation of the functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members—. circumstances. When any of these rights and immunities is disregarded or attacked, the [English] offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable under the law of Parliament. He concluded that: Pursuant to our practice and convention, when the Speaker —when these matters do take place, if they go beyond the point of being offensive to the point of being defamatory in a legal sense, certainly members rules on a matter of privilege all that is being decided is whether ought to and will I am sure pursue matters through the courts. the facts and evidence laid before the House are, in a prima facie case, sufficient to allow the usual motion to be proposed and Speaker Jerome ruled there was no prima facie privilege in debated over all other business leading to a decision of the that instance. 2705 COMMONS DEBATES March 24, 1994 Routine Proceedings A further case was raised on September 19, 1973. At that time both official languages, the government’s response to five the member for High Park—Humber Valley stated that he had petitions. received anonymous telephone calls warning him to cease raising questions on a certain subject. He suggested these calls * * * amounted to attempts to intimidate him and prevent him from carrying out his duties as a member. COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS (1010) Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre–Dame–de–Grâce): Madam Speaker Lamoureux in ruling on the matter stated the follow- Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, ing: the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and [Translation] Legal Affairs. The House will appreciate there is some difficulty in finding a prima facie case Pursuant to the order of reference, on Monday, February 14, of privilege in circumstances where no charge has been made and there has been 1994, your committee has considered Bill C–8, an act to amend no suggestion in the House of any irregularity or impropriety. There is really nothing for the House or one of its committees to consider under the heading of the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act privilege. (force), and your committee has agreed to report the bill without amendment. [English] * * * He further stated: I am sure the hon. member for High Park—Humber Valley does not suggest DIVORCE ACT that his conduct should be sent to the committee for consideration or investigation by it. Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): moved for leave to introduce —The hon. member has indicated what the facts of the situation are— I Bill C–231, an act to amend the Divorce Act (granting of access suggest that nothing at all would be gained by having a debate, either in the to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent). House or in a committee, on the matter raised by the hon. member for High Park—Humber Valley. She said: Madam Speaker, the motion is very simple. The bill that I am presenting today would amend the Divorce Act to grant [Translation] access to grandchildren for grandparents upon divorce. To return to the present case, I have carefully reviewed the Often times in our society when families are torn apart in a statement made by the hon. member for Markam—Whitch- divorce it is the children who are hurt the most and require urch—Stouffville. Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a someone who can help them put their world back together. member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without (1015 ) the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament Grandparents are a prime source of the financial and emotion- can do his duty as is expected. al assistance children need during this time in their lives. The [English] bill will remove the obstacles which sometimes arise in a divorce that prevents grandparents from offering these re- While the Chair does not in any way make light of the sources to their grandchildren. specifics that have been raised by the hon. member for Mark- (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and ham—Whitchurch—Stouffville, I cannot, however, say that he printed.) has sufficiently demonstrated that a case of intimidation exists such that his ability to function as a member of Parliament has * * * been impeded. I cannot therefore find prima facie privilege at this time. PETITIONS GUN CONTROL _____________________________________________ Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre–Dame–de–Grâce): Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by 100,000 Cana- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS dians. It is part of a 200,000 name petition that asks Parliament to ban the private ownership of handguns. [English] This petition was launched by Concordia University after four of its professors were murdered in 1992 with an easily obtained GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS handgun. Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of The petition has been endorsed by 200 broadly based orga- the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, nizations, including the police, which come from all across pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in Canada. 2706 March 24, 1994 COMMONS DEBATES Routine Proceedings In the petition they state that the rights of society associated The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are returning to with the possession of handguns far outweigh any potential statements by ministers. benefits derived from their possession. This is a petition asking Parliament to ban the possession of * * * handguns for private purposes. [Translation] [Translation] PARKS CANADA GUN CONTROL Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint–Hubert): Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition from honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the all parts of Canada dealing with gun control, especially the report entitled ‘‘Guiding Principles and Operational Policies for banning of handguns for individuals. Parks Canada’’. This petition is further to the one from the hon. member for (1020) Notre–Dame–de–Grâce and is from the same source, namely Concordia University.

Load more

  78

Copy Link