Privilege / Deceiving the House

Deceiving the House

Debates pp. 3024-5

Background

When the House met, Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) raised a question of privilege and charged that the Government had given misleading and evasive answers in the House to questions regarding a Public Service Commission memorandum on the hiring of francophones. After presenting his arguments, Mr. Douglas concluded that it was "perfectly clear that the statements made by various Ministers disclaiming any knowledge of a proposed plan were just not in accordance with the facts, [and] that last November the proposal had been agreed upon and the Public Service Commission was acting under instructions from the cabinet to prepare such a plan". Mr. Douglas proposed to move a motion to have the entire matter referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates if the Speaker should find this to be a prima facie case of privilege.

Issue

Are apparently conflicting statements of Ministers a contempt of Parliament, therefore constituting a question of privilege?

Decision

In this case, there is no question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

While a supposed contempt of Parliament may be an element of a breach of privilege, it is not by itself a question of privilege. The complaint raised by the Member may be classified as (i) wilful misconduct or intention to mislead the House, in which case a specific charge would have to be made and the matter then referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; (ii) a grievance or a censure against a Minister, in which case the complaint should be proposed as a substantive motion after notice; or (iii) a dispute as to facts, which cannot be considered a matter of privilege.

Sources cited

Standing Order 17(2).

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

Debates, February 26, 1970, pp. 4109-10.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 102, c. 113.

May, 17th ed., p. 42.

References

Debates, February 3, 1971, pp. 3021-4.