Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom of speech: misuse; relationship between Minister and Crown corporations

February 18, 2002

Debates, p. 8926

On January 28, 2002, Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East) rose on a question of privilege, alleging that both he and the House had been deliberately misled by Alfonso Gagliano (the former Member for Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel) during the latter’s tenure as Minister of Public Works and Government Services with regard to the relationship the Minister had had with a Crown corporation. Mr. Goldring charged that the Minister had contradicted reported statements made by Jon Grant, the former Chairman of Canada Lands Company Limited, concerning hiring practices at the federal agency. He added that, although Mr. Gagliano had resigned from the House of Commons since the statements in question had been made, this did not preclude some kind of censure. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

On February 18, 2002, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He cautioned that, although statements in the House are protected in an absolute sense by privilege, Members must be extremely judicious in their comments especially when these concern a former colleague who is no longer able to rise in the House to defend himself. He added that there were different opinions concerning the relationship that existed between the Minister and the Canada Lands Company Limited, but that it was not possible to arrive at the conclusion that the statements in question were instances of deliberate dishonesty. He also reminded Members that statements made or documents published outside the House should not be used to question statements made in the House. He concluded that there was no evidence that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton Centre-East concerning statements made in the House by the former Minister of Public Works.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and also the Government House Leader for his comments.

In raising this question, the hon. Member for Edmonton Centre-East charged that the former Minister of Public Works had on a number of occasions deliberately misled the House concerning the relationship between the Minister and the operations of Crown corporations. In support of his charge, the hon. Member referred to statements attributed to a former Chairman of the Canada Lands Corporation in various newspaper reports.

Let us first recognize that this case makes allegations about the conduct of a former Minister who is now no longer even a Member of the House. I want to remind hon. Members of the need for caution in framing remarks concerning individuals outside the House. With respect to Members’ freedom of speech Mr. Speaker Fraser stated on May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of Debates:

Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour.

Since statements in this place are protected in an absolute sense by privilege Members must be extremely judicious in their comments. I think all hon. Members will agree that this caution takes on an even greater significance when applied to a former colleague who is no longer able to rise in the House to defend himself.

Obviously, the Chair must view seriously any charges of deliberate falsehoods or dishonesty, either of which may affect the ability of individual Members to carry out their duties as parliamentarians and the dignity of Parliament itself.

I have carefully reviewed the statement made by the hon. Member for Edmonton Centre-East and I agree with the hon. Member that there are distinct views on the matters he has raised and a fundamental disagreement about the relationship that existed between the Minister and the Canada Lands Corporation. While such differences can be readily acknowledged it is more difficult to reach the conclusion that they represent instances of deliberate dishonesty.

Our rules concerning disagreements as to fact are longstanding and previous speakers have been consistent in their application of them. As an example I cite Mr. Speaker Fraser from Debates of December 4, 1986, at page 1792 where he stated:

Differences of opinion with respect to fact and details are not infrequent in the House and do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.

The hon. Member in his question was addressing an important matter which was acknowledged to be important by the Minister. However, whatever the differences might be, a dispute as to fact does not constitute a breach of privilege and the Chair cannot adjudicate on that dispute.

This ruling I note was given in response to an issue raised by the then hon. Member for Saint-Léonard–Anjou, Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, in response to comments made by the then Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Elmer MacKay.

There is an additional ruling that I thought hon. Members might note and that was by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on November 16, 1971, at page 923 of the Journals of the House. He said:

—the pertinent precedents tend to establish in the main that statements made outside the House, or documents published elsewhere, ought not to be used for the purpose of questioning statements made in this Chamber by hon. Members from either side of the House.

He went on to cite examples in support of that proposition. Therefore, on the basis of the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Edmonton Centre-East, I have concluded that while there is clearly disagreement as to the interpretation of events surrounding a serious issue the Chair can find no evidence that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.