Privilege / Impeding a Member

Impeding a Member

Debates p. 5411

Background

Having given notice April 28, Mr. Huntington (Capilano) presented his question of privilege on May 2. He explained that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) (Vancouver) had brought a civil suit against him because of remarks he had made on a radio talk show in which he repeated sentiments originally expressed in a committee of the House. Mr. Huntington complained that he was the victim of harassment and attempted intimidation and that the actions of the union were calculated to obstruct him in the performance of his parliamentary duties. Mr. Huntington based his question of privilege upon two points: a Member's right to protection from obstruction and the concept of a parliamentary proceeding. Mr. Huntington claimed that his remarks, since they had been made originally in committee, fell within the ambit of a parliamentary proceeding.

Issue

Was the Member's privilege to be free from molestation violated? Should remarks which he made on the radio be treated as an extension of a proceeding in Parliament?

Decision

There is no prima facie case of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

While the civil suit has caused the Member certain difficulties, it cannot be said to constitute obstruction or harassment in the narrow sense in which one must construe the privilege of freedom from molestation.

While there may be circumstances in which a matter arising outside Parliament can properly be considered as an extension of a proceeding in Parliament, and therefore be covered by privilege, a radio talk show would not be one.

Authorities cited

Roman Corp. Ltd. et al., v. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co. Ltd. et al., (1971) 18 D.L.R. (3d) 134 (Ont. H.C.); aff’d (1972) 23 D.L.R. (3d) 292 (Ont. C.A.); aff'd (1973) 36 D.L.R. (3d) 412 (S.C.C.).

United Kingdom, Parliament, House of Commons, Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (London, 1967).

References

Debates, April 28, 1978, p. 4972; May 2, 1978, pp. 5069-73.