Privilege / Reflections on a Member

Reflections on a Member

Journals p. 283

Debates pp. 2576-7

Background

While Members were exchanging charges, comments and questions related to the Munsinger case and to the statements of Mr. Cardin (Minister of Justice) alleging misconduct on the part of several Ministers in the former Diefenbaker Government, Mr. Bell (Carleton) proposed a motion which he had already informally suggested the previous day. His motion sought to have the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole in order to examine the Minister of Justice and determine what evidence he had to substantiate the charges he had made. After several comments by Members, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Is a motion acceptable that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to examine a Minister on a matter of privilege?

Decision

No. The motion is not in order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The usual way to determine if a breach of privilege has in fact occurred is to refer the matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections; no arguments have been presented to explain why this procedure should not be followed in this case. The ordinary function of the Committee of the Whole is deliberation, not enquiry. Moreover, this motion is substantive in character and requires notice. Finally, because the issue is the alleged impropriety of the Minister of Justice, a specific and detailed charge must be made against him.

Sources cited

Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 582-6; March 11, 1966, pp. 279-81.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 196, c. 230(1).

References

Debates, March 10, 1966, p. 2520; March 11, 1966, pp. 2574-6.