Committees / Interference in Committee Proceedings

Intimidation of witnesses; protection of witnesses; alleged breach of Members' privileges; matter involving a sub-committee having broken off its proceedings; prima facie question of privilege

December 4, 1992

Debates, p. 14631

On December 4, 1992, Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) rose on a question of privilege concerning the alleged threatening of a witness who had appeared before a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. The Member explained that on November 24, Mrs. Sheryl Eckstein, Founder and President of the Compassionate Healthcare Network Association, had appeared before the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code. During her presentation, Mrs. Eckstein showed a brief videotape of a Nazi film entitled "I Accuse". Following her presentation to the Sub-Committee, Mrs. Eckstein spoke on the telephone on December 3, 1992, with Ms. Kelly Crichton, Executive Producer of the television program The Fifth Estate. who threatened possible legal action on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) because of the testimony Mrs. Eckstein had given to the Sub-Committee.

Mr. Boudria contended that witnesses before Committees enjoyed the same privileges as Members of the House, and are therefore accorded the temporary protection of the House for any evidence they may give. He informed the House that the Sub-Committee in question had terminated its proceedings for the next few months, which effectively precluded him from airing the issue in the Committee in a timely manner, and, in the event of prorogation, from ever airing it.^[1]

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria) voiced his support for Mr. Boudria's question of privilege. Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Government House Leader) said that he had read an Ottawa Sun article on the subject and that the central issue might be one of copyright. In his opinion, there was a prima facie question of privilege.

The Speaker ruled immediately. He found sufficient evidence for the question of privilege and asked Mr. Boudria to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on House Management. His decision is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: First of all I thank the honourable Member for Glengarry­ Prescott-Russell for bringing this matter to the House, the honourable Member for Victoria who has made a helpful intervention, and the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Government.

Some mention has been made that this matter arose in a committee and honourable Members will have heard me say many times that usually matters should be put back to committee. My own feeling is that under the circumstances which have been explained to me that is not the convenient or appropriate thing to do at this time.

I have listened carefully to what was said. I think this is an appropriate case for the Chair to rule that there is a prima facie case for privilege. I would ask the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to move his motion.

The question on the motion was put immediately and adopted without debate. Accordingly, it was ordered,

That the matter of the threats by Ms. Kelly Crichton against Mrs. Sheryl Eckstein, a witness before a parliamentary committee, be referred to the Standing Committee on House Management.

The Standing Committee on House Management tabled its Sixty-Fifth Report on February 18, 1993. Having reviewed the issue and having called as witnesses Mr. Boudria, Mrs. Eckstein and Ms. Crichton, the Committee concluded that there was not sufficient evidence that intimidation of a witness had occurred to justify finding a contempt of Parliament. The Committee did comment, however, that Ms. Crichton and the CBC "may have been over-zealous" in asserting concerns about journalistic integrity. The Committee suggested that Ms. Crichton and the CBC were unaware of parliamentary protection for committee witnesses and that this lack of knowledge may have influenced their actions. The Committee also reaffirmed the principles of parliamentary privilege and the extension of privileges to committee witnesses.

It was also concluded that because the Copyright Act does not refer explicitly to the House of Commons, the Act is not applicable to the proceedings of Parliament. Hence, a Member or witness could quote from a work without first obtaining the permission of the copyright holder. Finally, the Committee recommended that the Speaker write to Ms. Crichton and the CBC to advise them of the contents of the report.

The Report of the Committee was concurred in on February 25, 1993.^[2]

F0909-e

34-3

1992-12-04