Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom of speech: limitations; content on a political party’s Web site and comments made by Members outside the House reflecting on the dignity of the House

April 16, 2002

Debates, pp. 10462-3

On February 28, 2002, Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) rose on a question of privilege with respect to documents found on the Canadian Alliance Web site that, he alleged, reflected negatively on the dignity of the House. Mr. Jordan stated that the documents, as well as related statements by Canadian Alliance Members, concerned ongoing proceedings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, specifically its study of allegedly conflicting statements made by Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence). The statements that concerned Mr. Jordan were to the effect that the Minister and Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister) had deliberately misled the House and concealed important information through false statements made in the House. (Editor’s Note: This matter had been raised as a question of privilege by Brian Pallister (Portage–Lisgar) on January 31, 2002,^[1] and, following a February 1, 2002 ruling by the Speaker,^[2] had been referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.^[3]) Mr. Jordan added that he believed that statements made outside the House which impugned the integrity of Members should be considered contempts of the House. After hearing from other Members, who questioned the timing of the raising of this question given that the Standing Committee was sitting at the time, the Speaker stated that he would hold the matter in abeyance until such time as the Members charged had had the opportunity to respond.^[4]

On March 19, 2002, Mr. Pallister, Leon Benoit (Lakeland), and Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke), the Canadian Alliance Members referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, rose to speak to the question of privilege. They claimed that the matter raised by Mr. Jordan was an attempt to prevent the opposition from criticizing the Minister and the Government. After interventions by other Members, the Deputy Speaker (Bob Kilger) took the matter under advisement.^[5]

On April 16, 2002, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded Members of the rights and responsibilities that flowed from their privilege of freedom of speech but, given the relevant practice and precedents of the House, he concluded that no prima facie case of privilege existed. Keeping in mind the long-standing tradition in the House of accepting a Member at his word, the Speaker reminded Members that the Minister of National Defence had denied that he deliberately misled the House. He added that he had been troubled by the fact that the language which had been complained of had appeared again in the text of a dissenting opinion from the Canadian Alliance that had been appended to the Fiftieth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the question of privilege relating to the Minister of National Defence.^[6] While not judging the content of dissenting opinions to committee reports, he reminded the House that it had become common for committees to agree to print, sight unseen, dissenting opinions as appendices. In view of this, he appealed to the Members and Chairs of committees to ensure that the parliamentary practice with regard to language and form was fully respected.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister on February 28, [2002]^[7], concerning communications issued on the Canadian Alliance Web site and by various Members of that party in relation to the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with regard to its study of conflicting statements made to the House by the Minister of National Defence.

I would like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair, as well as the hon. Members for Okanagan–Shuswap, Témiscamingue, and Richmond–Arthabaska, who all spoke when this matter was first raised.

I would also like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Leader of the Opposition in the House, as well as the Members for Portage–Lisgar, Lakeland, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Toronto–Danforth and Beauport–Montmorency–Côte-de-Beaupré, who have all contributed.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister argued that the Canadian Alliance had breached parliamentary privilege by the language used in certain statements on its Web site and through certain of its Members’ comments to the media to the effect that the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the House and concealed important information through false statements made in the House.

Members need not be reminded that the Minister denied that he deliberately misled the House or that the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study. Members had the opportunity to criticize and to challenge the words of the Minister, both in the House and during the proceedings of the Standing Committee, as is normal during debate. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has now reported on the matter of the statements of the hon. Minister of National Defence. It is up to the House to deal with the Report and its findings.

However, this question of privilege remains outstanding. I ask hon. Members to bear with me as I place the question in context.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following on page 74:

Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution for any comment they might make. This freedom is essential for the effective working of the House.… Though this is often criticized, the freedom to make allegations which the Member genuinely believes at the time to be true, or at least worthy of investigation, is fundamental.

It continues at page 76:

Members are therefore cautioned that utterances which are absolutely privileged when made within a parliamentary proceeding may not be when repeated in another context, such as in a press release,… on an Internet site, (in) a television or radio interview—

That being said, the privilege of freedom of speech is not limitless. Indeed, Members will recall that during the Committee’s study, the Chair here in the House had, on several occasions, to caution Members that it was unparliamentary to state that the Minister of National Defence had deliberately misled the House, had given false information, or had lied to the House.

I have carefully considered the arguments submitted to me concerning certain communication documents of the Official Opposition and certain comments made by the hon. Members for Portage–Lisgar, Lakeland and Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Based on our practice and precedents, I have had to conclude that no prima facie case of privilege exists. Nevertheless, though there is no breach of privilege, there is a cause for concern.

These various statements and communications were, in my opinion, intemperate and ill-advised. If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow Member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperilled.

I must also say that I am greatly troubled by the fact that the language complained of in this case actually appears again in the text of the dissenting opinion from the Canadian Alliance. Pursuant to motion of the Committee, that opinion has been printed as an appendix to the Fiftieth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Of course, Standing Order 108(1)(a) permits a committee to print dissenting views as appendices. Indeed, so common have these appendices become and such are the pressures of time when a committee completes its work, that committees often agree to print these dissenting appendices, sight unseen. This is a potentially dangerous development since it gives the authors of the dissent a virtual carte blanche in terms of their use of language. I would appeal to the Chairs of committees and to all hon. Members to pay close attention to the impact of committee decisions in this regard.

Let me be clear about this: As your Speaker, I am not commenting on the substance of dissenting opinions or on the content of committee reports themselves. Committees have been and must remain masters of their own procedure. But in deciding on the language and the form of these texts, I believe that it behooves all hon. Members to ensure that our parliamentary practice with regard to language and form is fully respected.

I hope that all Members will consider carefully what I have said in this ruling and that they will be guided accordingly, so that even in the heat of debate on contentious subjects, they will be mindful of our practice and respectful of the traditions that serve this House well.

Once again, I thank all hon. Members who intervened in this matter and I hope that these comments will be helpful.