Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Misrepresentation of Parliament’s role in Government communications respecting the proposed Goods and Services Tax: brochures

December 18, 1989

Debates, pp. 7058-9

On November 20, 1989, Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) rose on a question of privilege to complain about certain Government brochures on the proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) being distributed in his constituency. He argued that the brochures implied that the House had taken a decision on the proposed tax when it had not and that they were, accordingly, in contempt of the House. Furthermore, noting the similarity between the brochures in question and the advertisements which were the subject of a previous question of privilege on which the Chair had ruled on October 10, 1989,^[1] he claimed that the continued distribution of the brochures constituted a contempt of the Speaker’s decision^[2]. The Speaker took the matter under advisement and later in the day heard from the Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) and the Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West).^[3] In his decision of December 18, 1989, which is reproduced in extenso below, the Speaker dealt with the interventions of all three Members.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On November 20, 1989 the honourable Member for Kingston and the Islands raised a question of privilege related to certain pamphlets on the Goods and Services Tax which a constituent of his had informed him were being distributed in a local grocery chain outlet.

In view of the Chair’s ruling on October 10, 1989, the honourable Member questioned the propriety of the distribution of the pamphlets. He suggested that this constituted a contempt of the House, pointing out that in the text of the pamphlets the presumption that the GST will be law by January 1991 is everywhere asserted with none of the appropriate references to the legislative process through which the GST must pass.

Later that day, the Minister of Finance rose on a point of order to explain that the pamphlets in question were part of the initial information package prepared by the Department last summer and distributed last August. The Minister assured the House that the distribution contracts for the dissemination of that material had been completed by October and that, subsequent to the Chair’s ruling on the advertisements for the GST, steps had been taken to have all offending materials returned to the Department.

The honourable Member for Windsor West intervened to question whether the disputed material was still being distributed.

The Chair undertook to look further into the matter. I have now carefully considered the issue raised by the honourable Member for Kingston and the Islands and the remarks made by the honourable Minister of Finance. It appears that the point at issue is the timing of the removal of the pamphlets from public distribution.

The Chair is satisfied that the material in question was part of the summer advertising campaign and that given the intricacies of the nation-wide distribution of such material some time delays may have occurred in recovering material from that campaign. The Minister has assured the House that the Department had taken appropriate steps to have the material returned to it and has asked, in light of the complaint raised by the honourable Member for Kingston and the Islands, if Members would bring such aberrant cases to his attention so that corrective action may be taken where required.

In light of this information the Chair is satisfied that the honourable Member’s complaint has been fairly and expeditiously dealt with and considers the matter settled. If honourable Members have further information to bring to the Chair, the Chair of course will hear further applications.

F0102-e

34-2

1989-12-18