Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2009

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Whoa, whoa! Just calm down a minute!

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Pardonnez-moi.

[A voice]

Italiano—no problemo.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Italian? C'est ça. I apologize.

Parliamentary privilege refers, however, to the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions.

It goes on further in the same paragraph:

...so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account.

It goes on, and it refers on the next page, page 60 in particular, to a definition of parliamentary privilege.

The classic definition of parliamentary privilege is found in Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively… and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions

--is this a positive obligation or a negative obligation? Those are my comments--

and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law.

These “peculiar rights” can be divided into two categories: those extended to Members individually, and those extended to the House collectively.

It goes on, and this is the part that I think is crucial. Each category can be further divided:

...the rights and immunities accorded to Members individually are generally categorized under the following headings:

Then it speaks about these headings in point.

The first is freedom of speech, which obviously I don't think deals with this matter. The following are freedom from arrest in civil actions, exemption from jury duty, exemption from being subpoenaed to attend court as a witness, and freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation, and molestation. That particular point I would suggest we could come back to. It may indeed be part of the issue brought up by Marlene Jennings and also by Mr. Comartin.

The reality is that it is not a positive obligation on the minister. It's just to make sure that he does not obstruct, interfere, intimidate, or molest, which I would suggest, based on the evidence I have heard, is not at all the case. It goes on to say:

The rights and powers of the House as a collectivity may be categorized as follows:

The first is the exclusive right to regulate its own internal affairs, including its debates, proceedings, and facilities. Obviously not—

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I believe it is 5:30, so I'm asking the chair to adjourn.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

You wish to adjourn?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes, and that when we return—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Is it a motion to adjourn?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'm moving that this committee meeting adjourn, and that when we return on Wednesday we continue—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I thought my argument was so good, I can't believe—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

One moment, please, if you could bear with me. The question is whether you can actually move adjournment on a point of order.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor]...adjournment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I understand that. The question is whether you can adjourn the meeting on a point of order.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My understanding is that there has to be unanimous consent to continue past 5:30, doesn't there?

No?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You cannot move a motion on a point of order. However, Ms. Jennings, when Mr. Jean is finished, you're free to move the adjournment motion, and then maybe Mr. Jean will gladly cede the floor.

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

At 5:30 we have to adjourn. You have to adjourn the committee. We scheduled this meeting, as a committee, to attend here from 3:30 to 5:30. Unless there is unanimous consent, the chair has the responsibility to adjourn this meeting at 5:30.

Those are the rules of the committees.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It's a moot point. I'm prepared to cede the floor to Marlene Jennings in deference to her motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, Mr. Jean has ceded the floor.

Ms. Jennings, do you want to make the motion to adjourn?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I move that this committee now adjourn; that when we return on Wednesday of this week, which would be November 25, at 3:30, the matter with which we are dealing, Mr. Comartin's motion, be resumed as the first order of business; and that Mr. Jean be given the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I agree with the first part of the motion, but we have an agenda for Wednesday afternoon. The pre-committee has met and agreed on an agenda. I think the second part of her motion is going to require unanimous consent, and I am not hopeful that she's going to get it. But I think the first part of her motion is in order and I think this committee should adjourn, as Mr. Comartin suggested, at 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

When Ms. Jennings attaches a condition to the motion to adjourn, it becomes debatable.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I remove the attachment.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

Is there any further discussion on the adjournment motion?

(Motion agreed to)

This meeting is adjourned.