The Opposition House Leader, the member for Grand Bay-Westfield, in speaking on the question of privilege noted that senior civil servants are permitted in the Legislative Chamber for a specific purpose. They are present to provide their minister with detailed information which would enable the minister to more fully and accurately respond to the questions posed by other honourable members. He noted that senior officials are not invited into the House for the purpose of suggesting to the minister how they might insult a member of the opposition. The Opposition House Leader noted that the purpose of a point of privilege is to protect these privileges which are necessary for a member to carry out his or her duties as an elected representative. These officials are present to assist the minister in answering detailed questions on bills and estimates.
Officials are employees of the civil service and are legally responsible to the minister.
Ultimately, the minister must accept full responsibility for any responses made or for words that are spoken in the House. As I have noted in a previous ruling, it is a long-standing tradition in this House and in other Parliaments that the word of a member be accepted without question. The honourable Minister of the Environment has stated that the remarks, which form the basis of the question of privilege, are her own and not those of her officials. We must, therefore, accept the member at her word. The Chair therefore concludes that the matter as raised fails to establish a prima facie case of privilege.