Privilege / Reflections on the House

Reflections on the House

Journals pp. 1136-8

Debates pp. 9899-900

Background

At the commencement of the sitting, Mr. McGrath (St. John's East) rose on a question of privilege to complain about an article which had appeared in the Montreal Star on June 3 and which had only just come to his attention. The article, written by Mr. John Gray, described the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and its hearings on the seal hunt as a "hanging jury in a kangaroo court". Mr. McGrath claimed that the article reflected on every Member of the committee and the House. He said that it accused "the committee of deliberate dishonesty and of perpetrating a deliberate injustice" and that it was "clearly in contempt of Parliament". Accordingly, he proposed a motion to have the article referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections "to determine whether such a matter is a violation of the privileges of this House". The Speaker received several comments from Members, but deferred his decision in order to study the matter more closely.

Issue

Did the newspaper article go beyond the limits of fair comment and show a contempt for Parliament and its Members? Is the motion of privilege acceptable on procedural grounds?

Decision

While there might be a prima facie case of privilege, the motion cannot be allowed to be put because of certain procedural shortcomings concerning the length of time that elapsed before the question was raised and the form of the motion.

Reasons given by the Speaker

In matters of privilege involving newspaper comments two conflicting interests must be taken into account: the privilege of Members to exercise their duties and the freedom of the press to report parliamentary activities. In view of the strong language used in the article, there might have been some support for finding a prima facie case of breach of privilege, but two serious procedural difficulties stand in the way of such a finding: the matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, and there do not seem to be any mitigating circumstances which might lead the Chair to qualify this requirement. Second, the motion simply asks for an investigation by the committee to determine if there has been a breach of privilege, rather than to allege that there was a breach of privilege, which is the proper form. To request an investigation is not a motion of privilege, but an ordinary substantive motion which can be moved after notice.

Sources cited

Debates, June 18, 1964, pp. 4433-4.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 98, c. 108(3), (4); p. 102, c. 113.

May, 17th ed., pp. 43, 378.

References

Debates, June 9, 1969, pp. 9855-6.