Privilege / Freedom of Speech

December 11, 1984

Debates pp. 1114-5

On December 7, 1984, Mr. Nunziata (York South—Weston) rose on a question of privilege to claim that comments made by Mr. Robinson (Burnaby) in committee constituted a contempt of Parliament. (Mr. Robinson had alleged CIA penetration at senior management levels of Petro-Canada and had named several individuals as CIA agents.) The Speaker indicated that the privilege of a Member of Parliament when speaking in the House or in a committee is absolute, and that it would be difficult to find that any statement made under the cloak of parliamentary privilege constituted a violation of that privilege. He reserved his decision.

Issue

Can statements made by a Member in committee be construed as a contempt of Parliament?

Decision

No. There is no prima facie question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The statements made by Mr. Robinson did not constitute a contempt of Parliament as defined in Halsbury's Laws of England (obstructing or impeding any Member or official of the House in the discharge of his or her duty). By precedent, the conduct of a Member, even though reprehensible, cannot form the basis of a question of privilege, though a charge may be made by means of a substantive motion. A Member may state whatever he or she thinks fit in debate without further consequences to himself or herself.

Sources cited

Debates, June 19, 1959, pp. 4929-32.

May, 20th ed., pp. 82, 378.

Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 28, p. 465.