Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Conflict of Interest Code: Parliamentary Secretary Offended by insinuation of conflict of interest

December 11, 1991

Debates, pp. 6141-2

On December 3, 1991, after having his question of privilege postponed on two occasions^[1] due to the absence of the other Member involved, Mr. John MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) rose on a question of privilege regarding comments made by Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury) during Question Period on November 28, 1991. The question dealt with a tendering process regarding the construction of a federal building.

In a question to the Government, Mrs. Marleau had stated: “I want to know the real reason behind this nonsense. Is it because the owner of the second site and the Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) just happen to be brothers-in-law?”^[2]

The Parliamentary Secretary responded that this was not the case. He noted that these allegations “have caused damage to myself, my family and the riding of Timiskaming.” He then related to the House his knowledge of the tendering process.

In response, Mrs. Marleau gave her version and understanding of the events. Included in her submission was the statement: “I do not for one minute infer any wrongdoing on the part of the honourable Member, absolutely none.”^[3] The Speaker reserved on the matter.

On December 11, 1991, he delivered a ruling which is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: After having co-operated with the Chair and twice postponing his question of privilege, the honourable Member for Timiskaming rose on Tuesday, December 3, 1991 to protest certain comments made in the House by the honourable Member for Sudbury in an exchange which took place during Question Period on Thursday, November 28, 1991.

On that date, the honourable Member for Sudbury asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dave Worthy) a question concerning the termination of a contract for the construction of a veterans affairs building in Kirkland Lake.

The Parliamentary Secretary responded, and then in a supplementary the honourable Member for Sudbury put the question:

I want to know the real reason behind this nonsense. Is it because the owner of the second site and the Member for Timiskaming just happen to be brothers-in-law?

That was denied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.

The Debates shows that someone then shouted out: “It sure helped the brother-in-law” and another honourable Member said: “All in the family”.

As I explained to the House on Tuesday last, I am concerned not only with the question raised by the honourable Member for Sudbury but also with the mood that was created by that question. The Chair has to decide whether that question and those comments are merely out of order or whether they constitute a question of privilege.

The honourable Member for Timiskaming was given quite a full opportunity on Tuesday last to respond to what he termed “allegations which have caused damage to myself, my family and the riding of Timiskaming”.

The honourable Member for Sudbury, for her part, has stated in response to the Member for Timiskaming, and this is important, and I quote: “I do not for one minute infer any wrongdoing on the part of the honourable Member, absolutely none”.

Our jurisprudence is fairly clear in this regard. There has been no direct charge against the honourable Member for Timiskaming raised by the honourable Member for Sudbury and any inference to this effect has been categorically denied by the honourable Member for Sudbury.

On the narrow issue then of whether a question of privilege can be found on this basis, the Chair cannot decide in the affirmative.

There is, however, a more troubling aspect to this whole matter. It lingers and has a suffocating effect on fair exchange in this place. That is that once certain words are uttered, it is very difficult to retract them. The honourable Member for Timiskaming referred in his comment the other day to the hurt that the remarks made in the Chamber had caused him, his family and his constituents and he pleaded that in fairness: “We should once and for all be able to clear such allegations and not allow them to happen”.

In coming to a decision on this question of privilege, the Chair is somewhat consoled by the fact that an opportunity to clear the issue has taken place. Prevention is more difficult to address. When certain words are uttered in this place, they receive wide and instant dissemination. Quite frankly, they leave an impression. The words may later be retracted, the inferences or offence the occasion caused may be withdrawn, denied, explained away, or apologized for. However, the impression is not always as easily erased.

The Chair has on numerous occasions in the past urged honourable Members to respect the conventions and traditions of this place and to conduct themselves with the civility becoming representatives of their constituents. That type of civilized conduct should encompass not only interventions in debate but also questioning, statements and even those types of comments usually attributed in the official debates to: “some honourable Members”.

The Chair wishes to emphasize that a major element of this civilized conduct consists in refraining from personal attacks. There is good reason for this. First of all, in a general sense, respect for the person is the building block upon which our society is structured. Secondly, few things can more embitter the mood of the House than a series of personal attacks, for in their wake, they leave a residue of animosity and unease.

Accordingly, the prohibition against personal attacks in our Chamber is fundamental to maintaining order in this House. That is why my predecessors and I have so frequently in the past interrupted when personal attack seemed imminent.

However, while the Chair is granted many powers, it is not omniscient and cannot predict what course debate or questioning or interventions will take. Accordingly, in the final analysis the Chair must depend on the responsible attitude of each honourable Member.

Statements are made here to attract attention: the attention of the House; the attention of one’s constituents; the attention of the media and the public at large. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that Members do not realize the potential impact of their words on the audience they reach.

The Chair can devise no strategy, however aggressive or interventionist, and can imagine no codification, however comprehensive or strict, that will as successfully protect the Canadian parliamentary traditions that we cherish as will each Member’s sense of justice and fair play. Especially at this time of crisis of confidence in our parliamentary institutions, our constituents deserve and will tolerate no less.

F0129-e

34-3

1991-12-11