I am now prepared to rule on the question or privilege raised on Tuesday afternoon by the hon. member for Lethbridge concerning the text of Motion No. 1 standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for their participation in the discussion.
For the benefit of all hon. members, I remind the House the motion in question contains a number of charges against the hon.
member for Lethbridge relating to actions in which he participated at the beginning of this year.
Having rendered my ruling on Tuesday on the procedural acceptability of this motion's being dealt with under Private Members' Business, I will now address the matter of what the hon. member contends is a breach of his rights.
The member submitted that having this motion standing unresolved on the Order Paper has and will continue to seriously affect his reputation and his ability to function as a member. Further, the member argued that given my earlier ruling and that he felt he could seek no other remedy for the situation, he had no option but to bring this matter before the House as a question of privilege.
It has been repeatedly acknowledged by my predecessors that parliamentary privilege is narrowly defined as being limited to matters which affect members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.
For a breach of privilege to occur, a member must sufficiently demonstrate that something has obstructed or interfered with his or her ability to discharge duties as a member of the House.
In ruling on a question of privilege, I, as Speaker, have to decide whether or not at first glance there has been a breach of privilege.
In this instance, I must determine whether or not the motion sitting on the Order Paper violates the member's privileges by, in some way, impeding him from carrying out his duties.
In the past motions regarding the conduct of members have been placed on the Order Paper under Private Members' Business and have been allowed to remain there, in some cases for the remainder of a session, without ever being brought to a decision by the House.
I refer members to Motion No. 132, placed on notice on May 5, 1986, Motion No. 459, placed on notice on May 24, 1989, and Motion No. 167, placed on notice on February 28, 1996. This last motion died on the Order Paper in the first session of this Parliament but, having been resubmitted under Private Members' Business in this session, was subsequently drawn and debated as a non-votable item of Private Members' Business on March 22, 1996. It was then dropped from the Order Paper without a decision of the House.
The motion now in question, Motion No. 1, was placed on notice on February 27, 1996. The hon. member for Lethbridge acknowledged he hesitated to bring this matter before the House until it had at least reached the point of debate.
While I recognize the hon. member's concern that in the near future he will not be able to respond to the charges made against him, I do not find the member has demonstrated his abilities to function as a member have in any way been affected or impeded over the course of the months that this motion has been sitting on the Order Paper. As such, I cannot find that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege.
The hon. member for Lethbridge sought guidance on how he might be able to address his grievance were I to find this matter not to be a prima facie breach of privilege. In the case before us, while the House will not have to take a decision on the motion in question, the hon. member will have the opportunity to respond to the motion when it is brought up for debate in the House.
In addition, let me reiterate what I said Tuesday: the rules of the House now in place allow for the proceedings on this motion to go forward. Should the House choose to re-examine these rules, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is empowered to undertake such an examination on its own initiative.
Might I therefore suggest that the hon. member consider pursuing this matter with the committee.
Again, I thank all hon. members for their contributions to this discussion.