Privilege / Impeding the House

Government advertising campaigns

Debates pp. 3780-1

Background

On October 9, Mr. McGrath (St. John's East) rose on a question of privilege and denounced the use of public funds to launch an advertising campaign on the Government's constitutional position which, in his view, was created to generate public pressure on Members to support the Government's position. Mr. McGrath said that he was prepared to move a motion referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. After hearing comments from Members, the Speaker took the matter under consideration and ruled a few days later.

Issue

Does the fact that the Government uses public funds to publicize its constitutional position constitute a question of privilege?

Decision

No. There is no prima facie case of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

It cannot be said that the Government's spending impedes the House or the Members in the fulfillment of their duties. The fact that certain Members feel that they are disadvantaged by not having the same funds to advertise as the Government does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege. As for the content of the publicity, there is no evidence that it represents false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons, or misrepresentations of Members.

Sources cited

Debates, December 10, 1979, pp. 2180-1.

References

Debates, October 8, 1980, pp. 3381-2, 3391-2; October 9, 1980, pp. 3519-21, 3528-44.