Privilege / Reflections upon a Member

Reflections upon a Member

Journals pp. 1135-7

Debates pp. 11960, 11999-2001

Background

During the course of his remarks on March 18, Mr. Stevens (York—Simcoe) asked the question: “What administration at a senior level of government in Canada, other than this administration, would be allowing Cabinet Ministers who have acted illegally to carry on in their posts?” Mr. Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) immediately stood up on a question of privilege and demanded to know what specific charges the Member was prepared to make. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner) intervened to observe that no specific charge had been made and no specific Minister named. Mr. Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council) requested that the Speaker reserve further comment on the issue.

The following day, Mr. Sharp (President of the Privy Council) returned to the question of privilege. After allowing considerable discussion, the Speaker explained several points relating to the case and reserved judgment on others to the following Monday, March 22.

Issue

Can the same question of privilege be brought up more than once?

Does the statement or accusation by Mr. Stevens constitute grounds for a question of privilege?

Must an unsubstantiated charge against a Member be withdrawn if it is specific? Is there a question of unparliamentary language?

Decision

To assert that the question of privilege is being brought up twice is to be too strict in applying the rules.

There is no question of privilege.

The charge is a direct allegation and must be withdrawn. The language, in the context it was used, is unparliamentary.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Indication had been given that arguments would be made, and notice confirming that indication had been received by the Speaker's office. It is unreasonable to maintain that despite the interval between last night and this morning, this is not really the first reasonable opportunity to raise the question of privilege.

No motion has been attached to the question of privilege and no request has been made for action by the Chair.

In the context of the debate regarding the "judges affair" the words of Mr. Stevens constitute a direct charge and thus offend Standing Order 35.

It follows that the term is unparliamentary.

Authorities and precedent cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 119-20, c. 136; p. 122, c. 140.

Standing Order 35.

Journals, June 30, 1943, pp. 565-6.

References

Journals, March 19, 1976, p. 1133.

Debates, March 18, 1976, p. 11926; March 19, 1976, pp. 11950-61.