Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Interference with Members—intimidation and immunity: alleged attempt to intimidate a Member by distribution and publication of a press release containing false information

August 12, 1988

Debates, p. 18272

On July 14, 1988, Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue) rose on a question of privilege and alleged that because of an erroneous press release from the Public Service Alliance of Canada and a subsequent press report based on it, she was being intimidated and “blacklisted.” Ms. Mailly explained that the union representing federal government language teachers had organized a demonstration at her constituency office and had issued a press release stating that she did not support the teachers in their negotiations with Treasury Board when, in fact, she supported the teachers and had indicated that she would make representations on their behalf to the President of the Treasury Board.^[1] The Speaker reserved on the matter and rendered his decision, which is reproduced in extenso below, on August 12, 1988.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On Thursday, July 14, 1988 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue claimed that her privileges as a Member had been breached in relation to a press release prepared by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the contents of which were subsequently published in the weekly newspaper Le Dimanche Outaouais. The press release dated July 6, 1988, which was delivered to the honourable Member’s office on July 7, 1988, dealt with the strike of the federal Government language teachers and a demonstration in support of the teachers organized to take place on [July 6], 1988, at the honourable Member’s riding office. The press release, copies of which have been supplied to the Chair, states that the honourable Member has not supported the teachers in their negotiations with the Treasury Board.

The honourable Member explained that she had indeed supported the teachers’ cause and had told them that she would intervene on their behalf with the President of the Treasury Board regarding their demands for preparation time and language of negotiations. The honourable Member went on to assert that the information contained in the press release is false and that its distribution and subsequent publication in a local newspaper constitute an attempt to intimidate her as a Member of Parliament in the exercise of her duties and as such represents a breach of privilege.

The honourable Member may indeed have a legitimate grievance and can certainly dispute the facts as they are reported. The issue which the Chair must precisely decide is whether the preparation and publication of this information about a Member of Parliament constitutes a prima facie question of privilege in the traditional sense. Past precedents are highly restrictive in this regard and generally require that clear evidence of obstruction or interference with a Member in the exercise of his or her duty be demonstrated in order to form the basis for a claim of a breach of privilege.

Speaker Jerome, in dealing with a similar case on June 23, 1977 ruled that “…the protection of an elected person against unwarranted or intemperate publicity, even abuses or defamatory publicity, is precisely that which is enjoyed by every citizen before our courts”. He went on to add that “As elected people we can and do expect to be the targets of attack. When those attacks seem offensive I think it is appropriate that the honourable Member is offered the courtesy of the House to extend to his honourable colleagues an explanation of the circumstances”. He concluded that “when these matters do take place, if they go beyond the point of being offensive to the point of being defamatory in a legal sense, certainly members ought to and will I am sure pursue matters through the courts.”^[2]

Past Speakers have consistently argued that freedom of the press is one of the fundamental rights of our society which ought to be interfered with only if it is clearly in contempt of the House. Members who have complaints about reporting of their positions or activities should seek remedy in the courts.

In the case raised by the honourable Member for Gatineau (Ms. Mailly), I must rule that the matter does not constitute a question of privilege but that she may avail herself of the appropriate legal procedures if she feels that her personal reputation has suffered damage. I thank the honourable Member for raising this issue and trust that this ruling has been helpful to her and to other honourable Members.

F0120-e

33-2

1988-07-12