Privilege / Reflections on a Member

Reflections on a Member

Debates p. 1827

Background

On March 1, Mr. Cossitt (Leeds) rose on a question of privilege to object to what he claimed were slanderous and reprehensible statements made about him by the special assistant to Mr. Marchand (Minister of Transport). The offending remark, reported in the Ottawa Journal, was made at a meeting of the Liberal association in Smiths Falls and described Mr. Cossitt as a "purveyor of hatred". He proposed to move a motion to have the entire matter investigated by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Although the Speaker expressed some doubts as to the merits of the case, he decided to defer his ruling until the next day because the notice of the question had been somewhat late in reaching him.

Issue

Do the allegedly "slanderous" remarks of a Minister's assistant constitute a breach of privilege?

Decision

There is no prima facie case of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The actual words used in the newspaper article are "purveyor of hatred against the Government". This puts a somewhat different slant on the news story, and on the offending statement itself. It is doubtful that a court would find the words allegedly used to be defamatory. "Perhaps the real question relates to the propriety of a public servant, employed in the special capacity of assisting a Minister, making derogatory remarks at a public meeting about a Member of Parliament." Sending the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections would not assist the Member or correct the situation.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 99-100, c. 110.

References

Debates, March 1, 1973, p. 1780.