Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Misleading practices: alleged misuse of the term “parliamentary” to describe a political party’s news service

November 4, 1987

Debates, pp. 10725-6

On September 22, 1987, Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) rose on a question of privilege to protest the alleged misuse of the term “parliamentary” to describe a news service of the Progressive Conservative Party. While conceding that not “all unauthorized usage of the word ‘parliamentary’ is improper,” he maintained that it was improper “to attempt to mislead people into believing something belongs to Parliament when it does not.” He cited instances in which the improper use of the term “Member of Parliament” and the misuse of Hansard were found to be in contempt of Parliament and he contended, in keeping with those precedents, “the service of a satellite to broadcast propaganda on behalf of a political party… under the name of this Parliament…is in contempt of this House.” Other members also intervened on the matter.^[1] The Speaker reserved and in his ruling of November 4, 1987, reproduced in extenso below, addressed the arguments advanced in detail.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I shall deal first with the question of privilege of the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell who rose on September 22, 1987.

The issue he raised concerned what he alleged was a misuse of the word “parliamentary” by the service known as the Parliamentary News Service.

In presenting his argument, the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell cited the case from May 6, 1985, where the words “Member of Parliament” were used by other than the currently elected Member for that riding, and the Speaker ruled that a breach of privilege had occurred because the member could be impeded in fulfilling his duties if confusion existed in the minds of his constituents as to who the Member really was. That particular ruling is of interest, but I have to advise the honourable Member regretfully that I did not find it of assistance in the present case.

Also, the 1983 incident referred to by the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell had to do with a newspaper advertisement which the public could have seen as a quote from Hansard, which it was not. The sacred nature of Hansard has always been protected, and while the press is at liberty to quote from it, they must do it truthfully rather than try to mislead the public by altering or falsifying the record as published in the House of Commons Debates.

A similar case occurred in 1960 when the Sperry and Hutchinson Company reproduced the Debates of the House and the Speaker ruled that anything that relates to control by the House, present or future, over its own reports, having the possibility of abuse of such publications in mind—which is easily imaginable—required the Speaker to allow to go forward by finding at least prima facie grounds for complaint. This is found in the Journals of the House, February 16, 1960, at pages 157 and 158.

In 1965, the Steelworkers Hamilton Council-PAC News used the cover of the Debates in its newsletter. The Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege and based his ruling on the 1960 case.

However, in none of those matters do I find any parallel with the point raised by the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. All the cases referred to involved deliberate attempts at misleading the public by falsely depicting a document as a quote from Hansard. Truly, such is not the case in this instance.

There are a number of previous rulings which dealt with incidents concerning “parliamentary task forces” composed of members from only one Party caucus. In the “Parliamentary Task Force” case of December 10, 1979, the issue revolved around the question of the use of public funds for examinations conducted by Members of one political party. In the 1980 case, the issue concerned the use of the term “parliamentary task force” for what was essentially a special committee. In the first case, Speaker Jerome stated:

…in my opinion the greater wisdom would be to ensure that in every case…where public funds are used to support such a committee…such a committee consist of members of more than one party in the House.^[2]

As can be seen, these two cases do not directly apply here. There has been no allegation that public funds are involved in the Parliamentary News Service.

The most direct pronouncement on the use of an expression relating to Parliament is found in Statutes. The Act respecting the use of the expression “Parliament Hill” was given Royal Assent on May 19, 1972. The purpose of this Act was to prevent the commercial use of the words “Parliament Hill”.

In the case being raised by the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, however, the question at issue is whether or not the use of the word “parliamentary” by itself should be restricted in any way by the House.

As the honourable member for Kamloops—Shuswap (Nelson Riis) pointed out to the House, the dictionary defines “parliamentary” as “of or relating to Parliament”, and of course “Parliament” is defined as “the Council forming with the Sovereign the supreme legislature consisting of the House of Commons and the Senate”. Therefore, anything describing or relating to either Chamber or the two chambers together in conjunction with the Queen could be termed “parliamentary”.

Does the use of the word “parliamentary” in the Parliamentary News Service not describe the fact that the news covered by the service relates to or concerns Parliament? I think that is true. The news it provides may be, in fact probably is, selected with a view to enhancing a particular perspective. Does this alter the fact that it relates to Parliament? Any newspaper or broadcaster in the country always has been and continues to be free to select those items emanating from Parliament which they believe to be of interest to the public. Because this place is an institution composed of partisan, political people, there are often opposing viewpoints reflecting in its proceedings. I would think there are few Canadians who are not aware of that fact.

The question before me is whether the use of the term “parliamentary”, in this instance, is a breach of privilege or some sort of contempt of the House.

Honourable members all know that privilege is a narrowly defined procedural expression. To quote from Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, it is:

…the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.^[3]

Having examined the recorded precedents and studied the substance of the matter raised, I am not convinced that the rights or privileges of any Member have been breached. I have not been convinced either that the dignity of Parliament or the integrity of its proceedings have been compromised by the use of the term [“parliamentary”] in this case. I cannot therefore conclude that this is a genuine question of privilege.

I do feel, however, that a legitimate concern has been raised by the honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. Both the Chair and indeed all honourable members of the House should be conscious of the need to protect and enhance the reputation of Parliament and of this House and be vigilant in their duty in this regard.

I might say to the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that sometimes the line between the position he is taking and that which is permissible can indeed be very fine. I would say that to the degree possible, when others are using the word “parliamentary”, they might take into account that very fine distinction.

I thank the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for raising the matter and I also thank all those who participated in the discussion. There is not, however, in the Chair’s view, a breach of privilege in this instance.

I might say to the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that he has probably done the House and the public some service in bringing the matter to the attention of the Chair.

F0104-e

33-2

1987-11-04