Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation: Member alleged to have given a misleading response to a question; distinction between a matter of debate and a question of privilege

October 5, 2006

Debates, pp. 3718-9

On September 28, 2006, Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition) rose on a question of privilege arising from a response provided by Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) to a question posed by Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grace–Lachine) during that day’s Oral Questions, with respect to an apology to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who had been wrongfully incarcerated and tortured in a Syrian jail.^[1] Mr. Graham argued that by accusing the Liberal Party of actions that had led to Mr. Arar’s incarceration in Syria, Mr. Kenney’s reply had been misleading because he had not made allegations against specific Members, and he called for Mr. Kenney to withdraw the remarks.^[2] After hearing from Mr. Kenney, the Speaker indicated that although at first glance the issue appeared to be a matter of debate rather than one of privilege, he would review the statements made and return to the House with a decision.

On October 5, 2006, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He declared that the matter was a dispute as to facts rather than a question of privilege. He also took the opportunity to remind the House of the importance of proper decorum, reminding the House that the conduct of Members should not disrupt proceedings. At the time, excessive noise was triggered by questionable language and provocative statements, and interruptions, interjections and other demonstrations, including applause and standing ovations, seemed designed to drown out those recognized to speak. The Speaker asked for the assistance of the House in ensuring that Members could be heard when recognized to speak.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning comments made by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister during Question Period on Thursday, September 28, 2006.

I would like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for raising this matter as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for his intervention.

During Question Period on September 28, the hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Lachine posed a question concerning the Government’s response to the O’Connor Report on the imprisonment and torture of Mr. Arar.

In the preamble to the question, the hon. Member noted that the previous Liberal Government had initiated the O’Connor Inquiry. She went on to ask the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister why the Government did not extend an apology to Mr. Arar.

In his response to the question, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary claimed:

Mr. Speaker, how ironic that a representative of the Liberal Party should say they took the first step with respect to Mr. Arar. They did by taking actions which ended up putting him in a Syrian jail.

Following Question Period, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege to take issue with these comments. He expressed concern that the remarks suggested that the Liberal Government had been involved in the events surrounding the imprisonment of Mr. Arar and he requested that the hon. Member withdraw the remarks.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary defended his response to the question by quoting from Mr. Justice O’Connor’s Report. In conclusion, he asserted that this matter was not a question of privilege but rather a point of debate.

I undertook to look at both Members’ statements and return to the House with a ruling on the matter.

As I have stated before in previous rulings, it is rare for the Chair to find a prima facie case of privilege when there appears to be a dispute as to facts. In order for there to be a prima facie case of privilege, I must find that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary’s comments impeded the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the performance of his parliamentary duties.

I have examined the arguments offered by both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, as well as questions put by the hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Lachine and answers provided by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary in Question Period.

Given the differing views of both hon. Members, it is difficult for the Chair to regard the matter as anything other than debate. I am, therefore, unable to find a basis for the charge of prima facie breach of privilege.

Despite this conclusion, the raising of this matter in circumstances of high emotion on both sides affords the Chair an opportunity to address broader issues of decorum.

As I noted in a ruling given on October 1, 2003, and which can be found on pages 8040 and 8041 of the House of Commons Debates:

As Members of Parliament, we all deal regularly with differing interpretations of various events or situations and differing views of documents laid before the House. Members can—and often do—disagree about the actual facts of the same situation. Disagreements of this kind form the basis of our debates. Our rules are designed to permit—indeed to encourage—Members to present differing views on a given issue. This tolerance of different points of view is an essential feature of the freedom of speech and the decision-making process that lie at the heart of our parliamentary system.

But the exercise of that freedom of speech ought to be based on the underlying principle of respect to the House and to other Members. Conduct should not cause a disruption to proceedings.

It would be an understatement to say that we have been plagued in recent weeks by what any observer would have to admit is an unusually noisy Chamber, particularly during Question Period. Some of the disorder is being triggered by questionable language or provocative statements.

But much of it also appears to be generated by interruptions, interjections or other demonstrations, including applause and standing ovations, actions that seem to be designed to drown out or plainly disrupt those asking questions or those answering them. But when the noise reaches levels where no one, not even the Speaker, can hear what is being said, the House as a whole loses some credibility.

So I appeal to all hon. Members for cooperation. I will continue to try to give Members wide latitude in expressing their points of view, but I ask for all Members’ assistance in ensuring that we can all hear the Member who has been recognized and who has the floor.

I was tempted to give this ruling at 2:15 p.m., but I thank hon. Members for being patient and listening to it now.