Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
“This is not a breach of privilege. Members of Parliament have protected free speech for their work here, and outside groups cannot punish them for it. The Speaker already has the power to protect these rights without a special vote.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the intervention raised by the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler respecting the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River’s parliamentary work. I will state that this issue does not constitute a matter of privilege. The long history of parliamentary privilege protects members from interference by external organizations and bodies in their particular duties. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 states, in regard to the protections of members to do their work unimpeded by external bodies such as courts or other adjudicative bodies, “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” The 24th edition of Erksine May’s Parliamentary Practice states on page 233: Article 9 is a provision of the highest constitutional importance, and should not be narrowly construed. Four of the terms in Article 9 are particularly critical to its understanding: “impeached”, “questioned”, “proceedings in Parliament”, and “court or place out of Parliament”. It is clear that the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, in making comments in a supplementary opinion attached to the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, was doing so in an official proceeding of Parliament as a member of Parliament. These proceedings in Parliament are protected by the ancient privileges established for just this purpose. While the complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is under consideration, the member should not fear any reprisal for discharging his parliamentary duties protected by privilege. The Speaker is the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, and as an institution, it confers upon the individual in that role the power to defend these rights through legal proceedings or any place out of Parliament. The Speaker does not need the authority of a resolution of the House to execute his or her role as guardian of the rights and privileges of the House. I submit that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is well aware of the 400-year-old statutory regime that concretizes the rights of the House and its members to deliberate without external molestation. I therefore conclude that members be reassured that their rights and privileges will always be upheld by the Speaker as the guardian of rights and privileges of the House as an institution. I am thankful for the time to express that.”
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the intervention raised by the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler respecting the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River’s parliamentary work. I will state that this issue does not constitute a matter of privilege. The long history of parliamentary privilege protects members from interference by external organizations and bodies in their particular duties. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 states, in regard to the protections of members to do their work unimpeded by external bodies such as courts or other adjudicative bodies, “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” The 24th edition of Erksine May’s Parliamentary Practice states on page 233: Article 9 is a provision of the highest constitutional importance, and should not be narrowly construed. Four of the terms in Article 9 are particularly critical to its understanding: “impeached”, “questioned”, “proceedings in Parliament”, and “court or place out of Parliament”. It is clear that the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, in making comments in a supplementary opinion attached to the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, was doing so in an official proceeding of Parliament as a member of Parliament. These proceedings in Parliament are protected by the ancient privileges established for just this purpose. While the complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is under consideration, the member should not fear any reprisal for discharging his parliamentary duties protected by privilege. The Speaker is the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, and as an institution, it confers upon the individual in that role the power to defend these rights through legal proceedings or any place out of Parliament. The Speaker does not need the authority of a resolution of the House to execute his or her role as guardian of the rights and privileges of the House. I submit that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is well aware of the 400-year-old statutory regime that concretizes the rights of the House and its members to deliberate without external molestation. I therefore conclude that members be reassured that their rights and privileges will always be upheld by the Speaker as the guardian of rights and privileges of the House as an institution. I am thankful for the time to express that.