Privilege / Impeding a Member

Impeding a Member

Journals pp. 844-8

Debates pp. 6183-5

Background

On May 30, Mr. Baldwin (Peace River) raised a question of privilege concerning Judge Mayrand's critical comments and, in particular, the judge's statement that he "cannot tolerate criticism of the trial of Alexander Peter Treu made in the Commons last week by Alberta MP Gerald Baldwin". The matter was debated in the House that day and on June 1. During the course of the second period of debate, the Speaker intervened to explain the procedural significance of a question of privilege and to suggest to the House that it consider referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Rights and Immunities for their examination. The proposal was put forward by the Speaker as a means by which the position of the House could be accommodated without having to make a basic decision on the question of privilege.

Issue

Do the judge's critical comments amount to intimidation and hence constitute a question of privilege?

Decision

There is no question of privilege. No precedent was cited in which language implying a threat but not stating it had been found to be a matter of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The Speaker said that the comments of the judge could be interpreted two ways; either that he was speaking in defence of his court or that he was intending to intimidate the Member. If he had intended to intimidate the Member, he could have threatened to charge him with contempt of court, which he did not do.

Authority and precedents cited

May, 19th ed., p. 150.

Journals, June 18, 1975, p. 645.

Debates, June 18, 1975, p. 6882.

References

Debates, May 30, 1978, pp. 5872-7; June 1, 1978, pp. 5951-62.