Privilege / Miscellaneous

Document of a political party allegedly prepared with public funds

Debates pp. 8707-8

Background

Following an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail, Mr. Baker (Nepean—Carleton) rose on a question of privilege to complain that public funds were used, in his view, to help the New Democratic Party prepare a document of principles supporting the Government's position on the Canadian Constitution by placing various services at its disposal. Mr. Baker maintained that the question of privilege was justified as all Members were unable to benefit equally from government research services. Therefore, he proposed that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be seized of the matter. After hearing Members' comments, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Does the claim that all Members did not have equal access to Government resources constitute a question of privilege?

Decision

No. There is no prima facie case of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Mr. Broadbent (Oshawa) having explained to the House that the information had been obtained from the Office of Federal-Provincial Relations, the argument that all Members did not have equal access to Government resources could not be invoked. The arguments raised are not sufficient to permit one to conclude that there was impropriety. The Chair must not play the role of censor and will not pass judgment on the propriety or impropriety of certain actions of the Government.

Sources cited

Debates, December 10, 1979, pp. 2180-1; March 10, 1981, p. 8075.

Abraham, L.A., and Hawtrey, S.C., A Parliamentary Dictionary, (London, 1970), p. 164.

References

Debates, March 27, 1981, pp. 8697-708.