Privilege / Misleading the House

Conflicting statements by Ministers

Debates pp. 7884

Background

On February 25, Mr. Rae (Broadview—Greenwood) rose on a question of privilege to denounce the alleged discrepancies in the answers given recently by Mr. Kaplan (Solicitor General) on February 18 and by Mr. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) on February 19, on the subject of the regional responsibilities of Ministers. These replies concerned a letter sent on February 12, by Mr. Kaplan to one of Mr. Rae's constituents, in which the Minister stated that he was responsible for the constituency of Broadview—Greenwood. Mr. Rae maintains that there was an usurpation of the functions of the Members of the House of Commons. After hearing Members' comments, the Speaker took the matter under consideration and ruled a few days later.

Issue

Do apparently conflicting statements by Ministers constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege?

Decision

No. There is no prima facie question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

If it is true to say that a Member elected to a constituency also represents the whole country, then one cannot deny that each member of the Cabinet represents all of Canada. Moreover, the tradition is that regions not represented in Parliament by the governing party have a representative in Cabinet, in this case a regional minister. Furthermore, the choice exercised in assigning to a Minister, either responsibility for a region, or for a constituency, may be a grievance rather than a matter of privilege.

Sources cited

May 19th ed., p. 147.

References

Debates, February 18, 1981, pp. 7424-8; February 19, 1981, pp. 7455‑6; February 25, 1981, pp. 7671-84.