Privilege / Reflections on a Member

Reflections on a Member

Debates p. 2293

Background

On October 31, Mr. Brewin (Greenwood) raised a question of privilege, claiming that statements he had made concerning mercy flights to Biafra had been misrepresented in a letter from the Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations to his Nigerian counterpart. Mr. Brewin then stated that "unless [the Secretary of State for External Affairs] is ready to accept my word on this matter, I will ask that [it] be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs ... After comments from Mr. Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs), Mr. Brewin, dissatisfied with the explanation offered, inoved his motion subsequent to a ruling that a prima facie question of privilege existed. The Speaker reserved decision until the following day.

Issue

Can a Member move that certain statements attributed to him be referred to a committee as a question of privilege?

Decision

No. A dispute arising between two Members as to allegations of fact does not fulfil the conditions of a question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

It is a well-established rule that the House is bound to accept the word of a Member. It is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a Member as being contrary to fact, although no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. In any case, a dispute arising between two Members as to allegations of fact does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege. Finally, all aspects of the Nigerian and Biafran situation have been referred specifically to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Any further discussion could be held in committee without the special reference proposed by the motion.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 96-7, c. 105(3); p. 102, c. 113; p. 126, c. 145.

References

Debates, October 31, 1968, pp. 2257-9.