ENGLISH VERSION

Check against delivery

RULING ON THE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE RAISED ON APRIL 9,
2019, BY THE MEMBER FOR MARKHAM—STOUFFVILLE
CONCERNING AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 49.8 OF THE
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT

 1

April 11, 2019
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on
April 9, 2019, by the honourable member for Markham—Stouffville
concerning an alleged violation of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada
Act.
In raising this matter, the member for Markham—Stouffville argued
that caucus expulsions or readmissions require proper due process.
According to her, members of the Liberal caucus were prevented from
voting on the rules for this decision pursuant to section 49.8 of the
Parliament of Canada Act. She stated explicitly that, in this case, the matter
of privilege is very much about knowing which rules apply for expulsion or
readmission; it is not about a possible caucus expulsion as was the issue
addressed in my ruling on April 8, 2019. In her view, although the Chair
has no role in the interpretation of statutes, it does not relieve the Speaker
of the responsibility to ensure that all members are aware of their rights in
this House.
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House
Leader informed the House that the Chair of the National Liberal Caucus
had indeed sent the requisite letter to the Speaker, specifying that the
provisions of the Act regarding the expulsion and readmission of caucus
members would not apply for the 42nd Parliament. This, in his view, makes
this question of privilege moot and removes any confusion as to which
rules apply. Furthermore, he argued that it is not the role of the Speaker to
adjudicate such matters.
The issue at hand is quite simple: the Chair is being asked, as was
the case with the recent ruling on a similar matter, to determine whether
provisions included in the Parliament of Canada Act, as they relate to
matters of caucus, have been violated. Section 49.8(1) of the Act states:
(quote) “At its first meeting following a general election, the
caucus of every party that has a recognized membership of 12 or
more persons in the House of Commons shall conduct a separate
vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following
questions:
(a) whether sections 49.2 and 49.3 are to apply in respect of the caucus;
(b) whether section 49.4 is to apply in respect of the caucus;

 2

(c) whether subsections 49.5(1) to (3) are to apply in respect of the caucus;
and
(d) whether subsection 49.5(4) and section 49.6 are to apply in respect of
the caucus.” (unquote)
These requirements, which came into force when the House adopted
Bill C-586, Reform Act, 2014 in the 41st Parliament, establish processes for
the expulsion and readmission of a caucus member, the election and
removal of a caucus chair, leadership review, and the election of an interim
leader. It is the caucus of each recognized party, not the Speaker, which
bears the responsibility for ensuring that these votes are held.
In fact, the only role of the Speaker is to be advised of the caucus
decision. Section 49.8(5) of the Act states:
(quote) “As soon as feasible after the conduct of the votes, the chair of the
caucus shall inform the Speaker of the House of Commons of the
outcome of each vote.” (unquote)
The Speaker’s role stops there. It does not, in any way, extend to
interpreting the results of the votes, how the votes were taken, or
interpreting any other relevant provisions.
This is very much in keeping with the general restraint on Speakers
when they are asked to interpret the law. Speaker Fraser stated this
fundamental principle in a ruling of April 9, 1991, at page 19234 of the
Debates:
(quote) “[…] the Speaker has no role in interpreting matters of either a
constitutional or legal nature.” (unquote)
This is in addition to another limit on its scope of authority; that is,
parliamentary privilege and, thus, the authority of the Speaker is limited to
the internal affairs of the House, its own proceedings; it does not extend to
caucus matters. The member for Markham—Stouffville was right to state
that the Speaker bears the responsibility for ensuring that all members are
aware of their rights in this House. While caucuses may have some
extraneous relationship to the membership of the House, it remains just
that; there is nothing to suggest that its proceedings constitute or relate to a
proceeding of the House.

 3

This leaves caucuses alone with the authority to govern their internal
operations. This is also made quite clear by the wording of section 49.7 of
the Act which bars against judicial review, stating:
(quote) “Any determination of a matter relating to the internal
operations of a party by the caucus, a committee of the caucus or the
caucus chair is final and not subject to judicial review.” (unquote)
With the full authority given to caucuses themselves in such unequivocal
terms, it is clear that the Chair has no role in the interpretation or
enforcement of this statute, even when members feel rudderless without
what they feel would be clearly stated and understood rules.
For these reasons, the Chair is unable to conclude that the member
for Markham—Stouffville has been obstructed in the fulfillment of her
parliamentary functions. Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a prima
facie question of privilege.
I thank all honourable members for their attention.