Privilege / Misleading the House

Minister’s statements during Question Period

Debates pp. 17822-4

Background

On May 20, Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West) rose on a question of privilege alleging that, on May 18, Mr. Chretien (Minister of Justice) deliberately misled the House when answering certain questions regarding the referral of the matter of offshore mineral resources to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Crosbie said that he was prepared to move a motion referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. After warning the Member against the use of the unparliamentary expression "deliberately misled" and after hearing Members' comments, the Speaker took the matter under consideration and ruled a few days later.

Issue

Can accusations to the effect that a Minister deliberately misled the House justify a question of privilege?

Decision

No. There is no prima fade case of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The question was raised at the earliest opportunity, but the Minister denies having deliberately misled the House. As it is customary to accept a Member's statement, the matter cannot be dealt with as a question of privilege. Moreover, precedents indicate that the notices given to the Chair in view of raising a question of privilege and containing the word "deliberately" must be rejected. Should the matter be pursued, it is always possible to present a substantive motion and have it considered by the House.

Sources cited

Debates, March 11, 1890, p. 1714; February 28, 1978, p. 3295; December 6, 1978, p. 1857.

Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 25, c. 84(2); p. 114, c. 322.

May, 19th ed., pp. 142,347,349.

References

Debates, May 20, 1982, pp. 17621-43.