Privilege / Misleading a Member

Response to a question on the Order Paper

Debates p. 12836

Background

On November 4, Mr. Cossitt (Leeds—Grenville) rose on a question of privilege and maintained, using in support of his argument the report tabled a short time previously by the McDonald Commission on RCMP activities, that the Government had given him false information in its response in 1975 to a question he had placed on the Order Paper that year, regarding the pension paid to Mr. Igor Gouzenko. Mr. Cossitt said he was prepared to move referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The Speaker took the matter under advisement and ruled a few days later.

Issue

Does the fact that a Royal Commission report contradicts an answer to a question that had appeared on the Order Paper constitute grounds for a question of privilege?

Decision

No. There is no prima facie question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

A Minister may be expected to answer to the House for the acts of his officials, but the Government is not responsible for the acts or statements of a Royal Commission. Furthermore, even though the Commission says in its report that the Government's answer to the question on the Order Paper was in fact false, the report adds, that the examination of the files "has not disclosed that there was any sinister design that may reasonably be attached to the answer given in the House."

Sources cited

Debates, November 9, 1978, pp. 964-7; December 6, 1978, pp. 1856‑77.

May, 19th ed., pp. 136, 161.

Royal Commission of Inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Report, 1981, p. 350.

References

Debates, November 4, 1981, pp. 12500-1.