Alleged violation of the Parliament of Canada Act; caucus expulsion

The Deputy Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2019, by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington concerning an apparent violation of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and a number of other members also contributed to the discussion on this alleged question of privilege. In raising this matter, the member for Perth—Wellington explained the meaning of certain provisions added to the Parliament of Canada Ac t in 2015. As a result, caucuses are legally obligated to conduct certain votes at their first meeting after a federal election, one of which is to confirm whether section 49.2 of the act, which stipulates the process for expelling a member from caucus, will apply. The member for Perth—Wellington concluded by asking that the House be allowed to deal with this matter, given the lack of judicial recourse offered to members in this regard and the generally accepted limited authority of Speakers to interpret the law. In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader contended that, as the member for Whitby confirmed that her resignation was in fact voluntary, the requirement of timeliness for a question of privilege had been disregarded, and the Speaker cannot adjudicate on the legality of matters, the issue was a matter of debate, rather than a question of privilege. With respect to this specific case, there are a few points that need to be clarified. I will deal with them in reverse order. One, asking the House to deal with the possible expulsion of a member from caucus is not a proper subject for a question of privilege. If the member believes that the House needs to put in place certain practices, perhaps by way of additional Standing Orders, this should be done through a substantive motion following proper notice. Two, as was pointed out, I as Speaker... have no role in the interpretation of statute nor in the conduct of these 2015 provisions. All that is allowed under subsection 49.8(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act is that I shall be informed of the results of any vote taken by a caucus to formally expel a Member within the terms of the Act. Three, from the knowledge that I have, the hon. member for Whitby was not expelled. Instead, she voluntarily withdrew from the caucus to sit as an independent. Based on this understanding and these facts, there is no question of privilege. On April 9, 2019, Jane Philpott ( Markham—Stouffville ) rose on a question of privilege concerning the alleged violation of section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act as regards Liberal Party caucus expulsions and readmittances. [4] On April 11, 2019, the Speaker delivered his ruling and reminded the House that his role was limited to being advised of the caucus decision on the expulsion or readmittance of a caucus member and to the internal affairs of the House, which does not extend to caucus matters. [5] (Editor's Note: the decision can be found on page 129 ).. [1] Debates, March 22, 2019, pp. 26461–26463. [2] Debates, March 22, 2019, p. 26463. [3] Debates, April 1, 2019, p. 26527. [4] Debates, April 9, 2019, pp. 26847–26848. [5] Debates, April 11, 2019, pp. 26975–26976.