Privilege / Reflections on a Member

Accusations of lobbying and committing a criminal offence

Debates pp. 24027-8

Background

On March 16, Mr. Mackasey (Lincoln) rose on a question of privilege to denounce accusations made in a series of articles appearing in the Montreal Gazette, to the effect that he was a paid lobbyist. As such activities, would be in violation of the Senate and House of Commons Act, and he would have no right to sit in the House, Mr. Mackasey moved referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Having heard Members' comments, the Speaker took the matter under advisement and ruled a few days later.

Issue

Do newspaper articles accusing a Member of a criminal offence constitute a breach of the Member's privileges?

Decision

Yes. There is a prima facie question of privilege. [After debate, the motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections was agreed to.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into "hatred, contempt or ridicule". Moreover, authorities and precedents agree that even though a Member can "seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains." Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the Member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In addition, whatever the findings of the Committee, "they would in no way prejudice the rights of the litigants in a possible action for defamation."

Lastly, the matter can be taken under consideration by a committee of the House even though some aspects of it are before the courts as part of a bankruptcy proceeding, because "the House has never allowed the sub judice convention to stand in the way of its consideration of a matter vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the House."

Sources cited

Debates, July 25, 1975, pp. 7940-1; June 23, 1977, pp. 7043-7; April 22, 1980, p. 288.

United Kingdom, House of Commons, Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report, November 30, 1967, pp. xv-xvi; Testimony of Witnesses, appendix XIII, p. 203

References

Journals, March 22, 1983, p. 5736.

Debates, March 16, 1983, pp. 23834-5; March 17, 1983, pp. 23880-1; March 22, 1983, pp. 24027-30.