Question of Privilege
June 9, 1969
Reflections on the House
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
In matters of privilege involving newspaper comments two conflicting interests must be taken into account: the privilege of Members to exercise their duties and the freedom of the press to report parliamentary activities. In view of the strong language used in the article, there might have been some support for finding a prima facie case of breach of privilege, but two serious procedural difficulties stand in the way of such a finding: the matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, and there do not seem to be any mitigating circumstances which might lead the Chair to qualify this requirement. Second, the motion simply asks for an investigation by the committee to determine if there has been a breach of privilege, rather than to allege that there was a breach of privilege, which is the proper form. To request an investigation is not a motion of privilege, but an ordinary substantive motion which can be moved after notice.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"A prima facie case of privilege is not found because the matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity and the motion was improperly worded as a request for investigation, which is a substantive motion requiring notice, not a privilege motion."
AI Summary
A question of privilege concerning a newspaper article was denied due to not being raised at the earliest opportunity and an improperly worded motion.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Denied
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Ruling on a Question of Privilege
- Significance
Low
High