Privilege / Impeding the House

Impeding the House

Journals pp. 166-71

Debates pp. 1539-42

Background

On November 16, Mr. Baker (Grenville—Carleton) claimed as a question of privilege that a decision by Chief Justice Evans of the Supreme Court of Ontario proposed a new interpretation of parliamentary privilege; that a Member's rights do not extend protection to the media or to constituents who are in receipt of (restricted) information from the Member. Mr. Justice Evans' statement was contained in the court's decision on an application seeking a number of declarations concerning the Uranium Information Security Regulations S.O.R. 76-644, Mr. Baker proposed to have the relevant portion of the Chief Justice's judgment referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Issue

Does the judge's decision constitute an addition to the body of legal precedent on parliamentary privilege which is binding on the House?

Decision

The character and extent of parliamentary privilege is determined by the House, and not by any other body. Chief Justice Evans' consideration of privilege did not infringe on the rights of the House or of Members.

Reasons given by the Speaker

On close technical grounds the motion can be ruled unacceptable because it is too general to qualify as a question of privilege.

Members did not consider carefully enough that the judge's comments were made in the abstract and that those which apparently offended Members dealt with proceedings outside Parliament. The Chair agrees with Mr. Justice Evans in his statement that there are possible instances when privilege would not extend to Members beyond the House.

References

Debates, November 14, 1977, p. 823; November 16, 1977, pp. 934-9.

Re Clark et al. and Attorney General of Canada, (1977) 81 D.L.R. (3d) 33 (Ont. S.C.)