Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation: usurpation of the title “Member of Parliament”; prima facie

November 23, 2004

Debates, pp. 1733-4

On November 22, 2004, Michel Guimond (Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord) rose on a question of privilege with regard to an advertisement by Serge Marcil (former Member for Beauharnois–Salaberry) which referred to him as a Member of Parliament and included the addresses of his old constituency and parliamentary offices even though he had been defeated in a general election four-and-a-half months earlier. Mr. Guimond was granted unanimous consent to table the document in question. The Speaker then took the matter under advisement.^[1]

The Speaker delivered his ruling on November 23, 2004. He stated that the advertisement, in representing a non-Member as a sitting Member, constituted a prima facie breach of privilege and he invited Mr. Guimond to move his motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Monday, November 22, 2004, by the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord, concerning a misleading advertisement by a former Member of Parliament.

In raising his question of privilege, the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord stated that a booklet distributed to his office on November 12, 2004, contains an advertisement in which Mr. Serge Marcil is pictured and described as the Member of Parliament for Beauharnois–Salaberry. The advertisement also includes the addresses for the former offices of Mr. Marcil on Parliament Hill and in the riding. As hon. Members will know, Mr. Marcil was the Member for Beauharnois–Salaberry during the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, but was not returned in the June election.

The hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord compared the current case to the case raised in the House on April 25, 1985, in which Andrew Witer complained of an advertisement by the former Member for Parkdale–High Park in which the former Member, Jesse Flis, was represented as still being the sitting Member for that riding.

That case is set out in detail in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 87, note 173.

I have examined the advertisement complained of by the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord, and it is clear that his report of the facts of the matter is accurate. How this error occurred is not for your Speaker to judge.

I find that the advertisement, in representing someone as a sitting Member of this House who is not in fact a Member, constitutes a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House, and I invite the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord to move his motion.

Mr. Guimond moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the motion was agreed to.^[2] On February 23, 2005, the Committee presented its Twenty-Eighth Report. The Report exonerated Mr. Marcil as it had been determined the advertisement was published in error and there had been no intention on his part to misrepresent himself as a Member of Parliament.^[3] The Report was concurred in later that day.^[4]