Privilege / Reflections on a Member

Reflections on a Member

Journals pp. 913-5

Debates pp. 8999, 9004-5

Background

On October 20, Mr. Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona) rose on a question of privilege to object to an article which had appeared in Le Droit on October 14. According to Mr. Nugent, the newspaper account written by Marcel Pepin had impugned his motives. The article accused him of having received direction from the public galleries of the House by retired Admiral Brock when he had raised a question of privilege against Mr. Hellyer (Minister of National Defence) on October 12 of the previous week. Moreover, the article suggested that the question of privilege leveled at the Minister of National Defence was in fact the culmination of a Conservative plan to overturn the policies of the Minister and to preserve the British and Protestant character of the Navy. Consequently, Mr. Nugent moved "that Marcel Pepin be called before the bar of this House". After the text of the article had been read to the House by the Clerk, the Speaker asked the indulgence of the Member and the House in order to study the precedents on this type of complaint. On October 24, prior to hearing contributions from Members, the Speaker informed the House that he had studied the issue and had discussed it with Mr. Nugent who subsequently proposed to alter his motion so as to have the newspaper article referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and report.

Issue

Has a newspaper article breached the privileges of a Member when, in the opinion of the Member concerned, it has falsely impugned his motives?

Decision

There is a prima facie case of privilege. [The motion was negatived on a recorded division later the same day.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

In such an instance as this, it is not necessary for the Speaker to decide if a breach of privilege has been committed, but to decide if the complaint was raised at the earliest opportunity, and if the issue reasonably appears to involve privilege and requires priority. Having reviewed relevant authorities and being mindful of the Speaker's obligation to act as "the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the House and of its Members", the motion is accepted, despite some uncertainty in this particular case.

Sources cited

Journals, April 7, 1873, p. 133.

Debates, November 29, 1962, pp. 2132-3; June 18, 1964, pp. 4431-5.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 95-6, c. 104(5); p. 102, c. 113.

Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 303.

May, 17th ed., pp. 124,248,377.

Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 28, (London, 1959), p. 466.

References

Debates, October 20, 1966, pp. 8889-91; October 24, 1966, pp. 8999-9015.