Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

February 11, 1998

Debates, pp. 3737-8

In reply to a question during Oral Questions on December 2, 1997, Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour) announced that he was taking legal steps to fire the Chairman of the Canadian Labour Relations Board.^[1] This was greeted by a standing ovation by members of the House. Consequently, the Chairman went to court to seek an injunction to prevent legal proceedings that would lead to his firing. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal of the Federal Court, while presiding over the hearing for the injunction, was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper comparing the behaviour of members of the House to the people around the guillotine during the French Revolution. On February 3, 1998, following Oral Questions, John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington) rose on a question of privilege. In his submission, Mr. Bryden argued that the remarks of Justice Joyal were a contempt of Parliament and suggested three possible courses of action against the judge: a motion of censure; sending the issue to committee for study; or calling the judge before the bar of the House. After listening to interventions by other members, the Speaker declared that he would take the question under advisement to reflect on the situation and consider the alternatives and said that he would come back to the House, if necessary.^[2]

The Speaker made a statement after Oral Questions on February 11, 1998. He stated that he took into account the suggestion of Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River) who proposed that the Clerk of the House refer the matter to the Canadian Judicial Council. He added that the Executive Director of the Judicial Council had written to the Clerk to inform him that the Chairman of the Judicial Conduct Committee had initiated formal proceedings concerning the statements attributed to Justice Joyal. The Speaker said that before making further comment on the question, he would allow the Judicial Council to proceed with its initiative. The Speaker tabled copies of the correspondence and said that he would keep the House informed of all further developments in this matter.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to make a statement on the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for Wentworth—Burlington on February 3, 1998, concerning comments made by Justice Louis Marcel Joyal.

Let me start by thanking the honourable member for Wentworth—Burlington, the honourable member for Fraser Valley, the honourable member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the honourable member for Scarborough—Rouge River for their interventions in this issue.

As your Speaker and as a member of this House of Commons I consider this to be a very serious matter. To say that respect for our institutions is rapidly eroding is an understatement. When it is being eroded by some who should set an example for all Canadians it is even more damaging.

There is a necessary constitutional divide between our legislative and judicial branches. That divide should be bridged only when one institution seeks to vigorously support the role of the other.

Citation 493 in the 6th edition of Beauchesne exists precisely for the purpose of respecting this convention of the separation of roles, and I quote:

493.(1) All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the speaker has always treated them as breaches of order.

The House of Commons deserves at least the same respect from the courts.

It is for that reason that I have taken some time to reflect on this matter.

In his presentation on February 3, 1998, the honourable member for Scarborough—Rouge River made what I think is a very useful and insightful suggestion. He proposed that I direct the Clerk of the House to refer this matter to the Canadian Judicial Council, the body responsible to review the conduct of our judges.

As it turns out, the Executive Director of the Judicial Council has written to the Clerk to acquaint him with the fact that Chief Justice Allan MacEachern, Chairman of the Judicial Conduct Committee, has initiated formal proceedings under the bylaws of the Council concerning the statements attributed to Judge Marcel Joyal.

While this tum of events in no way precludes a finding on my part of a prima facie case of contempt, I have decided that it would be wise to follow the advice of the honourable member for Scarborough—Rouge River and allow the Judicial Council to proceed with its initiative before I comment further.

I am tabling copies of the said correspondence so that all honourable members may be aware of its content. I will keep the House advised of all further developments in this matter.

After Oral Questions on April 21, 1998, the Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council documentation in relation to comments made by Justice Louis Marcel Joyal of the Federal Court, further to the question of privilege raised by Mr. Bryden. The Speaker tabled these documents and considered the matter to be closed.^[3]

P0102-e

36-1

1998-02-11