Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom of speech: allegation of threats constituting intimidation against opposition members; threats of defamation lawsuits

December 13, 2018

Debates, pp. 24807–8

On December 4, 2018, Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) rose on a question of privilege regarding the responses given during Oral Questions on December 3 and 4 by Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister) and Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons).^[1] Mr. Cullen alleged that, in their answers to questions involving certain members of the Liberal caucus, they had threatened members of the opposition with legal proceedings if they repeated their allegations outside the House, which would constitute intimidation and a violation of the right of members to hold the government to account. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) replied that the freedom of speech granted by parliamentary privilege is accompanied by a sense of responsibility for what is said. After hearing from other members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On December 13, 2018, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that the freedom of speech granted to members is a fundamental right for House proceedings. However, he pointed out that this privilege is not limitless and must be exercised with caution. The Speaker reminded members that the Chair cannot comment on responses to questions, nor can he weigh in when members disagree on the interpretation of the facts. As Mr. Cullen was unable to demonstrate that he had been prevented from performing his parliamentary duties, the Speaker could not find that there had been a prima facie breach of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on December 4, 2018, by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley concerning certain responses to Oral Questions.

I want to thank the member for having raised the question, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the members for Portage—Lisgar and Timmins—James Bay for their observations.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley maintained that during question period on December 3 and 4, in response to questions about members of the Liberal caucus, the Prime Minister and the government House leader threatened opposition members with legal proceedings if they repeated their allegations outside of the House. He felt that this constituted intimidation that could prevent the opposition from holding the government to account and therefore a violation of his privileges.

For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader reminded members that the privilege of free speech comes with a sense of responsibility for any remarks made. He argued that the question raised was simply a disagreement as to facts.

I wish to remind the House that members enjoy absolute immunity when speaking during our deliberations. Free speech, a cornerstone of the rights and parliamentary privileges accorded to members is, as explained in citation 75 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne at page 22, " … both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee."

But while it is essential to the functioning of our parliamentary business, the word “free” cannot be thought to be synonymous with “limitless”. Speaker Fraser stated on May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of the Debates:

Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it…. All Hon. members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.

While the allegation in question should call for serious reflection, I do not have the power to comment on the scope of the answers given by the government nor to rule on the disagreement existing between the members as to the interpretation to be given to the facts. Speaker Jerome affirmed this on June 4, 1975, at page 6431 of Debates:

… a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 148, makes it clear that my role is rather limited to, and I quote:

… take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any Member’s ability to perform his or her parliamentary functions.…

In the present case, the member has not demonstrated to the Chair that he was prevented from speaking in parliamentary proceedings and therefore unable to perform his parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege.

That being said, everyone must consider the content of their remarks in the House. Members, of course, have broad freedom of speech, but we must never forget the potential effect of the words spoken during the vigorous debates that animate the House. Self-restraint and the utmost of respect are required in all circumstances.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.