Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction: impugning reputation of a Member

January 28, 2014

Debates, p. 2205

On December 6, 2013, Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) rose on a point of order to request the unanimous consent of the House to table a letter addressed to Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville) by Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, which had also been circulated to all Members of Parliament, Senators and their staff. Mr. Cullen characterized this letter as offensive and a personal attack on Ms. Borg. Unanimous consent to table the document was denied. ^[1] On December 9, 2013, Ms. Borg rose on a question of privilege stating that intimidation, obstruction and interference in the work of any Member of Parliament are considered to be a breach of privilege against that Member and to be a contempt of Parliament. She argued the damage that Senator Dagenais did to her reputation with this letter could undermine her work as a Member of Parliament and, therefore, hurt her constituents. The Acting Speaker (Barry Devolin) took the matter under advisement.^[2] On December 10, 2013, Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued that the Senator was also a constituent of Ms. Borg and that the letter was sent in response to a householder she distributed. He added that Ms. Borg did not refer to any proceedings in Parliament for which she was obstructed or intimidated and that Members cannot claim privilege to protect them from external criticism. Mr. Cullen responded that the letter by the Senator was a coordinated effort that must be taken seriously.^[3]

Resolution

The Speaker delivered his ruling on January 28, 2014. He stated that, while these kinds of statements have the potential to be damaging, in this case, there was no direct link between the statements and a proceeding of Parliament. Thus, unable to find that the Member had been impeded in fulfilling her parliamentary duties, the Speaker concluded that it was not a 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 Member for Terrebonne—Blainville on December 9.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for raising the question, as well as the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader for their interventions on the matter.

The hon. Member for Terrebonne—Blainville has shared with the House her view that a letter widely distributed by Senator Dagenais has unjustly impugned her character and reputation. She also decried what she described as the belittling, sexist, misogynistic, personal, and hostile tone of the letter. Finally, citing House of Commons Procedure and Practice, [Second Edition], she called on me to find a prima facie question of privilege on the grounds that this attack on her reputation constituted an impediment to her ability to perform her parliamentary functions.

The Chair is of course cognizant that these sorts of communications, whatever their origin, always have the potential to be hurtful and damaging, but the Chair is also obliged to assess such situations in the light of parliamentary precedent.

O’Brien and Bosc, at page 109, contains a passage that illustrates that a direct link must exist between the situation giving rise to the complaint and the ability of Members to perform their parliamentary functions:

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 some cases where prima facie privilege has not been found, the rulings have focused on whether or not the parliamentary functions of the Member were directly involved.

In the current case, the Member herself cited a ruling by Speaker Fraser that stresses the importance of the link to the performance of parliamentary functions and distinguishes between statements made in the House and statements made outside. Clearly, the communication which has given rise to this situation did not occur on the floor of the House, and so the normal channels remain available to the Member.

Speaker Milliken, in a ruling given in February 2009, said as much. There are, in fact, many Speakers’ rulings in a similar vein, as has been noted.

Without minimizing the seriousness of the complaint or dismissing the response 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 her parliamentary duties as a result. Accordingly, the Chair must conclude that there is no prima facie question of privilege.

That being said, as the Member herself has pointed out, she has the same recourse as any other citizen faced with attacks on her reputation or attacks she considers defamatory. That is a decision she will have to make. In the meantime, the Chair is constrained by the many precedents that establish that a direct link with parliamentary functions is essential in such cases.

I thank the House for its attention.