Privilege / Impeding a Member

Impeding a Member

Debates p. 5338

Background

When the House met, Mr. Howard (Skeena) rose on a question of privilege and claimed that his rights as a Member of Parliament had been infringed when he had been asked to leave the Millhaven federal penitentiary while on a visit there with several other colleagues, through a request made by the Solicitor General's office. The message they received claimed that, according to a legal opinion, "they had no statutory right to be in the institute". To the contrary, Mr. Howard maintained that Members have an obligation and a right to visit areas where public money is being expended. He also maintained that prior to the 1960-61 revision of the Penitentiary Act, Members had possessed a statutory right to visit prisons. Mr. Howard proposed to have the matter of this right referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Issue

Do the parliamentary privileges of Members include the right to visit certain institutions, such as penitentiaries? Is there a prima facie case of privilege?

Decision

There is no such parliamentary right in the view of the Chair. No prima facie case of privilege has been established.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"... parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House as a Member of the House of Commons." If visiting penitentiaries had been a parliamentary right, it would not have been necessary to make it a statutory provision, as it had been before 1961. If there is cause for complaint, it ought to be taken up in the form of a grievance against the Minister or the Government. "... the matter might be looked into not under the guise or cover of a question of privilege but perhaps by or as a result of a substantive motion."

References

Debates, April 29, 1971, pp. 5337-8.