Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation: casting aspersions on a Member

February 12, 2009

Debates, pp. 765-6

On February 3, 2009, Bill Casey (Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley) rose on a question of privilege with respect to a report which had been brought to his attention by a journalist and which suggested that the Conservative Party had made a complaint of embezzlement against him to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) (Editor’s Note: Mr. Casey had been expelled from the Conservative Caucus and was sitting as an independent Member). Mr. Casey argued that the association of his name with allegations of theft and embezzlement, especially when the document in question identified him but the source or precise nature of the complaint had been blacked out, undermined his credibility and impeded him in the performance of his duties. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1] The following day, in reply to a question posed during Oral Questions, Peter Van Loan (Minister of Public Safety) stated that the RCMP confirmed the file was closed and that Conservative Party officials did not believe that the Member had done anything wrong.^[2]

On February 12, 2009, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He noted that the document caused confusion due to the contradictions in it and because of redactions to conceal the names of the complainants and the nature of the complaint, while Mr. Casey’s name was revealed. The Speaker also reminded the House that the Minister had indicated that the RCMP had closed its file and that Conservative Party officials had made it clear that they did not believe that Mr. Casey had done anything wrong. He concluded that, despite the seriousness of the complaint, he could not find that Mr. Casey had been impeded in the performance of his parliamentary duties and that there was, therefore, no prima facie question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley on February 3, 2009, concerning an RCMP investigation into charges of embezzlement and theft of funds which he believes have damaged his credibility and, thus, his capacity to fulfill his duties as a Member of Parliament.

I would like thank the Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley for having raised this serious matter, as well as the hon. Chief Government Whip, the hon. Member for Windsor West and the hon. Member for Halifax West for their comments.

In raising this question of privilege, the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley noted that he was first made aware of accusations against him by a journalist who contacted him after having obtained a copy of an RCMP report through an access to information request, a copy of which the Member has kindly provided to the Chair.

He stressed that had the journalist in question not chosen to share the report with the Member, he would not have had the opportunity to defend himself.

The hon. Member went on to explain that much of the information in this report had been redacted or removed from the report, including the names of those who asked the RCMP to investigate and the exact nature of the allegations. This led him to conclude: “—so I do not know exactly what the charges are”.

Despite these specific omissions, the hon. Member pointed out that his own name could be identified at the end of the document and that the document also stated that the allegations were brought forward by members of the Conservative Party of Canada. As well, the report noted a sum of $30,000.

From these clues, the Member inferred that what was at issue was the transfer of funds, also in the amount of $30,000, between what was then his riding association and campaign accounts. It was thus presumably these financial transactions that were the basis of the allegation of embezzlement filed with the RCMP in September 2008.

In his submission, the hon. Member took great care to stress that it was the riding association and the campaign team that necessarily executed these transfers, acting independently of the hon. Member himself, and that the people involved “… followed the letter and spirit of the law, along with Elections Canada regulations”.

The hon. Member contends that the report, despite stating that the matter warrants no further investigation, is ambiguous in its conclusion and so still has the potential to cast doubt on his credibility and honesty and thus prevent him from effectively fulfilling his duties as a Member of Parliament.

The hon. Chief Government Whip, in his reply, stated that the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley made reference to party members rather than any specific Member of Parliament and that the Member’s submission was tantamount to a personal statement and not a question of privilege.

The hon. Members for Windsor West and Halifax West were supportive of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley. The hon. Member for Windsor West noted how unfounded allegations of this nature can affect the public perception of an individual and the individual’s contribution to public life in Canada, while the hon. Member for Halifax West underscored the danger of false accusations.

The Chair is of course entirely sympathetic to the plight of the Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley. However, in adjudicating questions of privilege of this kind, the Speaker is bound to assess whether or not the Member’s ability to fulfill his parliamentary functions effectively has been undermined.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on pages 91 to 95, goes on at some length to stress the importance in this type of situation of establishing a link to parliamentary duties.

Two examples are useful to illustrate the importance of this linkage. In a 1978 ruling, Mr. Speaker Jerome rejected a claim by a Member that a civil suit launched against him when he repeated on a radio talk show statements first made in committee was calculated to obstruct him in the performance of his parliamentary duties. The Speaker, in ruling that he could find no prima facie case of privilege, stated at page 5411 of Debates on May 15, 1978, that:

It seems quite clear that this matter has caused the Member certain difficulties in the performance of his duties as a Member of Parliament, but I have trouble in accepting the argument that these difficulties constitute obstruction or harassment in the narrow sense in which one must construe the privilege of freedom from molestation—

In the second example, which dates from 1994, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pages 94 and 95, states that a Member:

… claimed he was being intimidated by the media and had received blackmail threats as a result of media reports concerning the authenticity of the Member’s academic credentials. In finding that there was no prima facie question of privilege, the Speaker stated: “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a Member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no Member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected…. While the Chair does not in any way make light of the specifics that have been raised…. I cannot, however, say that he has sufficiently demonstrated that a case of intimidation exists such that his ability to function as a member of Parliament has been impeded.

The following quotation from pages 91-92 summarizes the view taken by successive Speakers:

… rulings have focussed on whether or not the parliamentary duties of the Member were directly involved. While frequently noting that Members raising such matters might have legitimate complaints, Speakers have regularly concluded that Members have not been prevented from performing their parliamentary duties.

As the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley pointed out, the document had been severely edited, to remove the names of all the individuals involved, except for his own name which still appears in the document’s file name at the end of the report. It was this that allowed the journalist to identify the Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley as the object of the criminal complaint. Had his name not appeared in the document’s file name, his identity might arguably have been protected.

Having reviewed the report in question, it is apparent to the Chair that the authors of the report were no more meticulous, not to say incredibly careless, than those who edited the document to comply with the usual practices in access to information requests.

The report contradicts itself repeatedly, first stating that there are “insufficient grounds or cause to warrant launching an investigation”, then referring to “the outcome of the investigation”, then going further to refer to the possibility of reopening the said investigation and then returning full circle to state that “no investigation will be occurring”.

The redactors of the report who prepared it for release under access to information took pains to delete the names of the complainant or complainants, but left the name of the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley in the filename at the end of the document. Such apparent carelessness and the confusion that can result are no doubt just cause for concern. In fairness, it should be pointed out that on February 4, 2009, as can be seen on page 342 of Hansard, the Minister of Public Safety advised the House that the RCMP had confirmed that “this file was closed” and that “… Conservative Party officials have also made it clear that they do not believe that the hon. Member in question, the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley, did anything wrong”.

However, without minimizing the seriousness of the complaint or dismissing the gravity of the situation raised by the hon. Member, it is difficult for the Chair to determine, given the nature of what has occurred, that the Member is unable to carry out his parliamentary duties as a result. Accordingly, the Chair must conclude that there is no prima facie question of privilege.

This does not take away from the potential reverberating effects of this case. By raising the matter in the House as he did, the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley forcefully defended himself from these allegations, explaining that the facts show no hint of any wrongdoing whatsoever on his part.

His complaint is legitimate and he is correct when he laments that “The report is here forever. It is not going to go away.” and when he spoke about the integral nature of trust and credibility to our work as Members of Parliament.

Once again, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.