44th Parl. 1st Sess.

May 3, 2023 02:00PM

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/3/23 9:59:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. As my colleague from Ontario mentioned, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following at pages 107 to 108: In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... Any form of intimidation of a Member with respect to the Member's actions during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt. This is long-standing and well-established procedure and principle of the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to an April 12, 1733, resolution of the British House of Commons, which states: That the assaulting, insulting, or menacing of any member of this House in his coming to or going from the House or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour. Of course, there is a difference between exercising the fundamental democratic right to enter into political debate and criticizing elected members of the House for the stands they take. As members know, Joseph Maingot, at page 235 of his work Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, articulates the appropriate balance between free debate and intimidation and coercion. ...all interferences with Members' privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of Members in their parliamentary work. Accordingly, not every action by an outside body that may influence the conduct of a Member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the Member to take or to refrain from taking a particular course. But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a Member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with Members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 109, observe that: In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament. In our opinion, that is definitely the case here. A “proceeding in Parliament” is a technical term for which Bosc and Gagnon, at page 90, refer to two definitions. The first is from Erskine May, and the second is from Australia's Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Erskine May's definition at page 235 of the 24th edition of Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament states the following: An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking. The Australian statutory definition, meanwhile, contains the expression “all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House”. Speaker Lamoureux, on September 19, 1973, said, at page 6709 of the Debates, that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.” This is quite obviously an attempt at intimidation. On May 1, 1986, Speaker Bosley held, at page 12847 of the Debates, “If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege.” Subsequently, Speaker Parent, on March 24, 1994, commented, at page 2706 of the Debates, “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.” More recently, on March 6, 2012, a prima facie contempt was found, arising from an intimidation campaign of YouTube videos from the Internet, by hacking collective Anonymous, largely targeting a former colleague and his family members as a consequence of legislation this colleague tabled in the House. In so ruling, the Speaker said, at page 5834 of the Debates: “Those who enter political life fully expect to be able to be held accountable for their actions to their constituents and to those who are concerned with the issues and initiatives they may advocate. In a healthy democracy, vigorous debate on issues is encouraged. In fact, the rules and procedures of this House are drafted to allow for proponents and opponents to discuss, in a respectful manner, even the most difficult and sensitive of matters. However, when duly elected members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously.” I would echo those words, “this House must take the matter very seriously.” Just as it is a novel concern in this recently surfaced story, which is still unravelling, that is not a procedural impediment to the Speaker finding a prima facie case of contempt here. On this particular point, Bosc and Gagnon comment, at page 81: “The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.... This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.” I therefore support the question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I hope the Chair will make a ruling on this important matter soon.

1068 words

All Topics

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 190