Privilege / Reflections upon a Member

Reflections upon a Member

Journals pp. 599-601

Debates pp. 6431-3

Background

On May 27, Mr. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert) rose on a question of privilege to challenge certain statements made about him by Mr. Trudeau (Prime Minister) on May 22. In defending the estimates of his office before the Committee of the Whole, the Prime Minister cited certain expenditures made by previous Prime Ministers, particularly Mr. Diefenbaker.

On June 2, when debate on the question of privilege resumed, the Prime Minister retracted one of his remarks. Mr. Diefenbaker then demanded a formal apology for the remainder of the statements and moved that the "slanderous and libellous allegations" be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Issue

Can allegations made by one Member against another in respect of his conduct as a Member either now or in the past constitute a question of privilege?

Decision

There is no question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The strict definition of parliamentary privilege should not be expanded to include controversies as to facts, opinions or conclusions. These are matters for debate; they are not questions of privilege.

If a Member complaining about the acts or remarks of another Member does not put his complaint in the form of a specific charge, it should not be considered as a question of privilege. The Speaker, quoting an earlier ruling, said: "[S]imple justice requires that no hon. Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence".

Authority and precedents cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 98, c. 108(3); p. 102, c. 113.

Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 582-7; December 17, 1964, pp. 1011-2.

References

Debates, May 22, 1975, pp. 6006-11; May 27, 1975, pp. 6152-3; June 2, 1975, pp. 6327-36.