Privilege / Reflections on a Member

Reflections on a Member

Journals pp. 300-1

Debates p. 2319

Background

Shortly after the House met, Mr. Lewis (York South) rose on a question of privilege to challenge certain statements made about him by Mr. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert). The day before, Mr. Diefenbaker had proposed a motion without notice pursuant to Standing Order 43 to have the "disparaging" remarks of Mr. Lewis concerning the judiciary referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The Chair was reluctant to allow debate on the motion unless it were redrafted. Because there was now some doubt as to whether a debate would be held on Mr. Diefenbaker's motion, Mr. Lewis felt a need to raise his question of privilege in order to explain his characterization of the Quebec judicial branch to the House. Mr. Lewis concluded by proposing that the false charges by Mr. Diefenbaker be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Subsequently, Mr. Diefenbaker was allowed an opportunity to explain his position. During the presentations by both Members, the Speaker was frequently obliged to explain that debate at this stage was not in order; both Members were only entitled to speak on the procedural aspects of the question of privilege. At the conclusion of this exchange, the Speaker announced that he would defer his decision until later in the day.

Issue

ls the proposed motion specific enough to allow a prima facie case of privilege?

Decision

No, it is not sufficiently specific; there is no prima facie case of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

There is little reason for the statements or conduct of a Member to be referred to a committee for scrutiny. A charge must be made in specific terms before a prima facie case of privilege is allowed. The motion of the Member for York South does not meet this requirement. It takes issue with the statements made by the Member for Prince Albert, but this is not a specific charge. The entire issue is essentially a matter of debate which might be conducted under another Standing Order or procedure.

Sources cited

Standing Order 17.

Journals, May 22, 1924, p. 299; June 19, 1959, pp. 582-6.

References

Debates, May 15, 1972, pp. 2243-4; May 16, 1972, pp. 2289-93.