Privilege / Impeding the House

Impeding the House

Journals pp. 55-6

Debates p. 707

Background

When the House met on March 9, the Speaker announced that five notices had been received seeking to raise a question of privilege in connection with the failure of the Auditor General to table his annual report as required by law. Because the receipt of so many notices was such an unusual occurrence, the Speaker proposed to allow the Members who had given notice to present their arguments and then to permit a response from the Government before possibly taking the matter under advisement. Since the terms of several of the motions were different, the government spokesman, Mr. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council), while denying that there was any question of privilege, agreed to accept the motion which had been put forward by Mr. Lewis (York South), provided that it be adopted by the House without debate. The motion of Mr. Lewis sought to have the Standing Committee on Public Accounts examine the complaint of the Auditor General who had asserted that the delay in submitting his report was due to the Government's failure to furnish him with an adequate staff.

Issue

Is there a prima facie case of privilege? Does the protection of privilege extend beyond the Members themselves to include senior public officials who might be regarded as officials of the House? Does the delay of the Auditor General in presenting his report affect the privileges of Members by impeding them in the discharge of their duties?

Decision

There is no prima facie case of privilege. Second, privilege has never been deemed to extend to officials or servants of Parliament. Third, the issue is one of administration, not privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Any accusation made against a senior public official is a breach of order. [In this case, the official is the Auditor General who, in failing to submit his annual report to the House as stipulated in the Financial Administration Act, had not complied with the law.] Such breaches of order, however, are not tantamount to breaches of privilege. In any case, parliamentary privilege conveying special rights on Members does not apply to officials or servants of Parliament. The complaint about the facilities of the Auditor General's office does not relate to privilege but rather to administration. This grievance should be considered by way of a substantive motion and not under the guise of privilege.

Sources cited

Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 582-6.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 128-9, c. 152(4).

References

Debates, March 9, 1972, pp. 659-69.