Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation: usurpation of the title "Member of Parliament"; prima facie

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Monday, November 22, 2004, by the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord, concerning a misleading advertisement by a former Member of Parliament. In raising his question of privilege, the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord stated that a booklet distributed to his office on November 12, 2004, contains an advertisement in which Mr. Serge Marcil is pictured and described as the Member of Parliament for Beauharnois–Salaberry. The advertisement also includes the addresses for the former offices of Mr. Marcil on Parliament Hill and in the riding. As hon. Members will know, Mr. Marcil was the Member for Beauharnois–Salaberry during the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, but was not returned in the June election. The hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord compared the current case to the case raised in the House on April 25, 1985, in which Andrew Witer complained of an advertisement by the former Member for Parkdale–High Park in which the former Member, Jesse Flis, was represented as still being the sitting Member for that riding. That case is set out in detail in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 87, note 173. I have examined the advertisement complained of by the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord, and it is clear that his report of the facts of the matter is accurate. How this error occurred is not for your Speaker to judge. I find that the advertisement, in representing someone as a sitting Member of this House who is not in fact a Member, constitutes a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House, and I invite the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord to move his motion. Postscript Mr. Guimond moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the motion was agreed to. [2] On February 23, 2005, the Committee presented its Twenty-Eighth Report. The Report exonerated Mr. Marcil as it had been determined the advertisement was published in error and there had been no intention on his part to misrepresent himself as a Member of Parliament. [3] The Report was concurred in later that day. [4]. [1] Debates, November 22, 2004, pp. 1657-8. [2] Debates, November 23, 2004, p. 1734. [3] Twenty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on February 23, 2005 (Journals, p. 471 ). [4] Journals, February 23, 2005, p. 472.