Privilege / Reflections on the House

Reflections on the House

Journals pp. 279-81

Debates pp. 2541-2

Background

On March 10, four related questions of privilege were raised by Members concerning statements made by Mr. Cardin (Minister of Justice) alleging improper conduct on the part of Ministers in the former Diefenbaker Government [Munsinger case]. The first, moved by Mr. Harkness (Calgary North), was disallowed immediately, even though the Chair was inclined to find a prima facie case, because the motion was too general and did not specify the charges against the Minister. 'Iwo of the remaining motions sought the resignation of the Minister of Justice, while the third requested that the Minister substantiate his charges. The Chair deferred a final decision on these motions after again allowing that there appeared to be a prima facie case of privilege.

Issue

Can motions be accepted as privileged if they are drafted in language which assumes the guilt of the Member or Minister accused?

Decision

No, the motions are out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Despite the fact that the Chair has declared there is a prima facie case of privilege, none of the three motions is in order. "... the motions assume as a conclusion that an actual breach of privilege has been established ... [T]his type of motion cannot be moved consequent upon a question of privilege." According to established practice, the only motion which should be moved and accepted in such cases is one to refer the matter of the alleged breach of privilege to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The present motions are substantive and cannot be accepted under the guise of privilege.

Sources cited

Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 582-6.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 95-6, c. 104(5).

Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 162.

Abraham, L. and Hawtrey, S., A Parliamentary Dictionary, (London, 1956), p. 40.

References

Journals, March 10, 1966, pp. 267-76.

Debates, March 10, 1966, pp. 2482-96, 2511-36.