Privilege / Miscellaneous

Commitment by one Minister repudiated by another Minister

Debates pp. 6737-9

Background

On January 27 and 28, respectively, Mr. Baker (Nepean—Carleton) and Mr. Nielsen (Yukon) each rose on a question of privilege to allege that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a statement made during Question Period had repudiated a commitment made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution. Mr. Nielsen said that he was prepared to move a motion referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. After hearing Members' comments, the Speaker took the matter under consideration and ruled on the two questions simultaneously, two days later.

Issue

Does the fact that commitments announced by one Minister are repudiated in later statements by another Minister constitute a question of privilege?

Decision

No. There is no prima facie case of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Parliamentary privilege is very limited, and is essentially restricted to freedom of speech, access to the Parliamentary Buildings, immunity against arrest or molestation, and exemption from serving as a juror or witness. The commitments announced from time to time by Ministers and which are sometimes changed in a later statement, can give rise to certain more or less well-founded criticisms or grievances, but do not constitute a breach of privilege. The arguments presented by the Members allude to contempts, but they are not accompanied by factual evidence demonstrating that these contempts occurred in these particular cases.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 25, c. 80(2); p. 38, c. 117(5).

May, 19th ed., pp. 141-2.

References

Debates, January 27, 1981, pp. 6589-92, 6598-603; January 28, 1981, pp. 6651-61.