Privilege / Deceiving the House

Deceiving the House

Journals pp. 125-9

Debates pp. 964-6


Journals pp. 221-3

Debates pp. 1856-7

Background

On November 3, Mr. Lawrence (Northumberland—Durham) raised a question of privilege and charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former Solicitor General. Acting on behalf of a constituent who suspected that his mail had been tampered with, Mr. Lawrence had written in 1973 to the then Solicitor General who assured him that as a matter of policy the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of anyone. However, on November 1, 1978, in testimony before the McDonald Commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis and that the practice was not one which had been concealed from Ministers. Mr. Lawrence claimed that this statement clearly conflicted with the information he had received from the then Solicitor General some years earlier. Extensive argument was presented the same day. The Speaker made a preliminary ruling, November 9, in which he disposed of certain issues respecting the question of privilege and in which he also deferred his decision on other aspects of the case which he had not been able to resolve to his satisfaction.

Issue

Is there a prima facie question of privilege?

Decision

Yes, there is a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons. (The House defeated the motion of reference the next day, December 7.)

Reasons given by the Speaker

The complaint was raised at the earliest opportunity.

The letter from the Solicitor General to Mr. Lawrence can be considered a proceeding in Parliament for the purpose of privilege.

A contempt committed during one Parliament may be punished by another.

The motion of Mr. Lawrence was originally drafted in a version which seemed to make a declaration of fact finding that contempt had taken place. This form departs from previous motions of privilege which have been accepted. In consultation with the Table Officers, Mr. Lawrence has revised his motion in a way which is less likely to damage the precedents in respect of these kinds of motions.

There is no procedural basis on which the Speaker can take into account the sub judice convention since the McDonald Commission is not a court. "There is no verdict to be given, and therefore no prejudice could result from discussion in this House parallel to the discussion taking place before that Royal Commission."

Authorities cited

May, 19th ed., pp. 136, 141, 161.

Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members, First Report, April 29, 1977, Issue No. 24, pp. 12-3.

References

Journals, December 6, 1978, pp. 223-4; December 7, 1978, pp. 228-9.

Debates, November 3, 1978, pp. 777-92; November 8, 1978, p. 924; December 6, 1978, pp. 1857-77; December 7, 1978, pp. 1892-925.