You are quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I do rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

The essential facts are that the hon. member sent out a householder, which prompted a critical letter to her, which was sent by one of her constituents.

In her presentation, the hon. member cited page 111 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which advises that the recourse for any member who feels defamed is to go through the courts. She then quoted from page 96 of O'Brien and Bosc, which refers to limits on the freedom of speech protections extended to members.

Let me offer another quotation from page 111 of O'Brien and Bosc:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfil his or her parliamentary responsibilities.

In her presentation, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville did not refer to any proceeding in Parliament in respect of which she was obstructed or intimidated.

The very next sentence in O'Brien and Bosc is, therefore, extremely instructive:

If, in the Speaker’s view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions, then a prima facie breach of privilege cannot be found.

Given the nature of the complaint, which is that of a letter from a constituent to a member of Parliament, let me quote from some relevant precedence.

Madam Speaker Sauvé, on March 1, 1982, at page 15474 of the Debates ruled that:

Parliamentary privilege is based on the need to protect members from any action tending to obstruct, or intimidate them or impair their effectiveness in the discharge of their duties. It is not designed to protect them from criticism, however strong, even when the language used might be excessive.

In a later ruling, on October 12, 1983, at page 27945 of the Debates, Madam Speaker Sauvé observed that:

If Members engage in public debate outside the House, they enjoy no special protection.

Finally, given that the constituent in question is a member of the other place, it is relevant to refer to page 278 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition:

Since the two Houses are wholly independent of each other, neither House can punish any breach of privilege or contempt offered to it by a Member or officer of the other.

That passage was favourably cited by Mr. Speaker Parent, on November 16, 1999, at page 1288 of the Debates.

In conclusion, it is clearly established that members of Parliament cannot claim privilege to protect them from external criticism, even when it is in response to their own efforts to communicate with their constituents. Being criticized for one's position is just part of the job for any individual who seeks elected office.

I can assure the member opposite, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, that every member in this Parliament, in fact I would argue every member of any parliament in the world, has from time to time been criticized for the positions that he, she or their party takes. Sometimes that criticism may be extremely harsh. Sometimes that criticism may be hurtful. Quite frankly, sometimes that criticism may be unfair.

However, the point is that when we enter the political arena, when we seek elected office, we put ourselves up to the level of criticism experienced by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville. In other words, that is part of the public and political discourse in the political world in which we operate.

I have no doubt the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville was offended and was probably hurt by the comments from the member of the other place. However, if all members in this place raised points of privilege any time they received an unwelcome communication from one of their constituents, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we would not get much done in this place. In fact, probably every day there would be a member, or members, rising to make such complaints and raise such points of privilege.

One can simply imagine that our days would be filled with nothing but points of privilege based on angry constituents' letters. Although we may not like them, it is part of our job to accept them, and they are certainly not, in my view, a point of privilege.

In short, I would say that a prima facie case of privilege is neither made out in this case nor would it be reasonable, given what could occur after that point.

Tom Lukiwski

Transcript

Routine Proceedings

Discussions (0)