Madam Speaker: I have two rulings for the House.

The honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) on April 7 raised a matter of privilege respecting passage of the The Electoral Divisions Act.

Advice was given to the Chair by members, and I thank those members who provided advice.

Did the honourable member for The Maples raise the matter at the earliest opportunity? Yes, he did, and therefore the matter meets the first qualification for one of privilege. Did the honourable member provide prima facie evidence?

The member put forward the argument that there had been contempt of the Assembly because the legislation arising from the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission was being presented to the House shortly before an election.

Joseph Maingot on page 13 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada–second edition–gives this definition:

"If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a Member of

Parliament–any of the Member's activities that have a connection with a

proceeding in Parliament–in such a case that it is a matter involving parliamentary

privilege. An offence against the authority of the House constitutes contempt."

On pages 13 and 14, he goes on to say:

"[P]rivilege is nevertheless subject to the practices and procedures of the House.

Thus allegations of breach of privilege by a Member in the House of Commons

that amount to complaints about procedures and practices in the House are by

their very nature matters of order."

Therefore, in the matter raised by the honourable member, the parliamentary privileges of this House have not been breached; the motion put forward by the honourable member for The Maples cannot be accepted as a matter of privilege.

* (1440)