I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 15, 2025, by the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola concerning members' access to federal penitentiaries.
In raising the question of privilege, the member alleged that he and the member for Cloverdale—Langley City had been obstructed and treated disrespectfully during a visit to Fraser Valley Institution on July 28, 2025.
He argued that section 72 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was enacted to enable members to supervise what is happening in penitentiaries. He also explained that this visit was made to fulfill his responsibilities, including his role as the opposition shadow minister for public safety.
The member admitted that he was granted access to the institution, but he asserted that the constant presence of an assistant warden, which was imposed despite his explicit request to visit the facility with uniformed correctional officers only, inhibited his conversations with staff and inmates by creating an intimidating environment and preventing candid discussion. The member stated that this obstruction interfered with his ability to fully prepare for the proceedings of the House, including the development of questions and motions, and lines of questioning at committee.
On September 16, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City rose in support of her colleague’s allegations. She pointed out that members have a duty to directly oversee public institutions to ensure that incarcerated persons are treated with dignity and respect.
On September 18, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons responded. He stated that there was no clear connection between the members' visit to the penitentiary and their parliamentary duties. He noted that this visit was not officially sanctioned by the House or a committee. While the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged that it was regrettable that the members believed they were not treated with due respect, he added that there were likely protocols in place to have visitors escorted. Since the members were allowed to enter and tour the facility, no intimidation or obstruction took place.
Before going any further, I believe it is appropriate to review the wording of section 72 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola referred to:
Every member of the House of Commons, every Senator and every judge of a court in Canada has the right to enter any penitentiary, visit any part of a penitentiary, and visit any inmate, with the consent of the inmate, subject to such reasonable limits as are prescribed for protecting the security of the penitentiary or the safety of persons.
The access to penitentiaries granted to parliamentarians and to judges, incidentally, is nothing new. In the United Kingdom, these visits are believed to have canonical origins that date back centuries. In Canada, they are mentioned in legislative provisions from before Confederation, as well as in Parliament’s 1868 Penitentiary Act. At the time, the right to visit was granted not only to members of Parliament but also to many public office holders, including the Governor General, the lieutenant governors, the members of the federal cabinet and others. These visiting rights remained in place thereafter, set out in various laws, before being repealed in 1961. Parliamentarians’ visits to federal penitentiaries subsequently fell under a directive of the commissioner of the correctional service.
Visiting rights were restored to statutory form in the current section 72 of the act with the overhaul of the prison law in 1992. Note that, while the bill was before Parliament, an amendment that would have given parliamentarians full access to any person in a penitentiary at any time was debated. However, the House rejected that proposal and passed the current wording.
In a ruling delivered on April 29, 1971, concerning a member who had been denied access to a penitentiary, which can be found on page 5338 of the Debates, Speaker Lamoureux offered the following explanation, and I quote:
On a number of occasions I have defined what I consider to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is that which sets hon. members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public do not possess. I suggest we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the centuries as belonging to members of the House of Commons.... It seems to me that the fact that the Penitentiary Act in the past, until 1961 I believe, did provide for a right on the part of members to make visits is an indication that if it were part of parliamentary privilege, it would not have been included in the statutes.
The right of parliamentarians to visit penitentiaries provided by section 72 of the act does not seem to fall within the bounds of parliamentary privilege. Consequently, the way members' visits to institutions are handled is not a matter for the Chair.
As for the allegation of obstruction by the assistant warden, in a decision handed down on February 26, 1975, which can be found on page 3580 of the Debates, Speaker Jerome stated the following:
...the classic definition of a question of privilege does not fit circumstances in which a member in his duties outside this House finds that his scope is being restricted or attempts are being made to restrict his scope of intervention and effective work on behalf of not only his own constituents but his point of view as a member of the federal Parliament.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains on page 60:
Privilege essentially belongs to the House as a whole; individual Members can claim privilege only insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House. In addition, individual Members cannot claim privilege or immunity on matters that are unrelated to their functions in the House.
It further states the following on page 109:
While every Member has duties as a representative of the electorate, a Member may claim the protection of privilege relating only to his or her parliamentary functions, though the line distinguishing these duties might blur.
The threshold that must be met to find that a member was impeded in the performance of their parliamentary functions is intentionally set high, and the associated repercussions must be more than hypothetical. Not every activity that involves members' access to information necessarily meets this threshold. Merely stating that the information could be useful for a motion a member intends to move or a question they wish to ask is not enough to link it with House proceedings. The issue must be closely and directly related, or necessarily incidental, to the legislative or deliberative functions of the House or its members.
Furthermore, as regards the protection of members against obstruction in the performance of their functions, I would refer to the words of Speaker Bosley in a decision rendered on May 16, 1986, and printed on pages 13361 and 13362 of the Debates, in which he remarked that a threat or attempt to intimidate cannot be hypothetical; it must exist or have taken place. Therefore, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
I understand the members’ concerns and am not downplaying their importance, but the facts presented do not satisfy the strict criteria for finding a breach of parliamentary privilege. That said, while this matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege, our federal institutions, including penitentiaries, must nonetheless strive to facilitate the vital work of parliamentarians.
I thank all members for their attention.
