Privilege / Reflections on the House

Advertisement portraying influence peddling

Debates p. 7771

Background

On February 13, Mr. Smith (Don Valley East) rose on a question of privilege to protest an advertisement being broadcast on English-language radio stations in Canada which, in his view, "constitutes a slur on the integrity of all Members of Parliament, in that it sets out a...situation which, if it were the case, would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code." The advertisement, a transcript of which was read in the House by Mr. Smith, consisted of a conversation between a fictitious supermarket owner and a fictitious Member. The latter suggests that the supermarket owner's application to build a parking lot near his store will be approved if he does a favour for friends of the Member. The Speaker took the matter under advisement and ruled a few days later.

Issue

Is this advertisement a case of contempt for the integrity of Parliament and its Members?

Decision

Yes. This is prima facie contempt of Parliament. [Because the Member had not moved any motion when he raised the question of privilege, the Speaker invited him to do so, but he declined as the advertisement in question had been withdrawn after he initially raised the matter in the House.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

The advertisement reflects on the honour of Members and thus could be said to involve contempt of Parliament.

References

Debates, February 13, 1981, p. 7218; March 2, 1981, pp. 7771-2.