Privilege / Reflections on a Member

Reflections on a Member

Debates p. 8600

Background

When the House met, Mr. Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona) raised a question of privilege to object to a statement made on October 12 by Mr. Hellyer (Minister of National Defence), who had characterized as "spurious" a motion Mr. Nugent had attempted to move as a question of privilege. In presenting his case by linking the use of the word "spurious" to several other remarks made by the Minister, Mr. Nugent claimed that the total effect of these impugned his honour and integrity. The Speaker pointed out that "it is not, per se, unparliamentary to say of another Member that the statement he makes is false, untrue, wrong, incorrect or even spurious, unless there is an improper motive imputed or unless the Member making the charge claims the untruth was stated to the knowledge of the person stating any such alleged untruth". Since the Minister had denied that he had sought to impute motives, there is no prima facie case of privilege. Mr. Nugent then asked the Speaker to consider that the imputation against him could be cleared only by a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, that the Minister could clear his name only by an investigation of that same committee, and that Members of the House should not be obliged to sit with a Member who refuses to clear his name. In making his request, Mr. Nugent explained that he was asking for a second interpretation from the Speaker.

Issue

Is there, in this case, a question of privilege based on unparliamentary language?

Decision

There is no question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The rules do not contemplate the possibility of a second interpretation on a decision of the Chair on a question of privilege. The Member had originally asked for a ruling on a question of privilege related to the use of a particular word. That request had been allowed because, as the Member had explained, the word had been mistaken for another. There was no such confusion about the meaning of other words and any question about their probity should have been raised at that time. Moreover, as had been explained in the first decision, words complained of should not be considered as a question of privilege, but on a point of order, unless they are so strong as to impugn the very honour and integrity of a Member.

References

Debates, October 13, 1966, pp. 8597-600.