Privilege / Freedom from Intimidation

February 20, 1984

Debates pp. 1559-61

On February 6, 1984, Mr. Cooper (Peace River) rose on a question of privilege arising out of a telephone conversation between a member of his staff and an official in the office of the President of Canada Post Corporation. Mr. Cooper, Opposition critic for Canada Post, alleged that the official had been abusive. The official had complained that Mr. Cooper's office had not cleared questions asked by the Member in the House with the President's office and warned that if this was not done in the future, Mr. Cooper could expect little co-operation from Canada Post. Mr. Cooper argued that this was an attempt to inhibit his freedom of speech, influence his actions in the House and hamper him in his role as spokesman for the Official Opposition. This constituted a breach of his privileges and showed contempt for Parliament. Mr. Ouellet (Minister of Labour) responsible for Canada Post promised to make enquiries into Mr. Cooper's allegations and report back to the House as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker took the matter under advisement pending the outcome of the Minister's enquiries.

On February 9, 1984, Mr. Ouellet reported to the House that he had spoken to the official involved who denied making any such threats. The Minister stated that from the explanation he had received, he could see no grounds for Mr. Cooper's allegations. In his statement to the House the Minister also challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper's question of privilege since it was based on a conversation between his assistant and the officer at Canada Post and did not directly involve the Member.

On February 14, 1984, Mr. Speaker heard further argument and reserved his decision for a few more days.

Issue

Does the threat by an official to with hold information and co-operation from a Member unless the Member clears the questions he will ask in the House with that official constitute a prima facie question of privilege?

Decision

Yes. There is a prima facie question of privilege. [The motion was negatived on a recorded division later the same day.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

A threat to withhold information or co-operation would undoubtedly hinder that Member in fulfilling his duties and therefore constitute a breach of privilege. An action which amounts to intimidation does not need to be directed at the Member in person in order to constitute an offence in terms of privilege. While the Chair accepts that both the Member and the Minister are stating the facts as they honestly believe them to be, "in a case where an Hon. Member claims his ability to function is being undermined, the Chair must take full account of the evidence presented, in this case the categorical assurance of the Hon. Member that the events took place as he related them». The circumstances leave the Chair with no choice but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established.