The Privilege of Parliment

I have a very thick textbook on my desk that very intimately describes the subtle nuances of Parliamentary Privilege.

The simple rule is that a member of the House of Commons is not allowed to be tried for a crime or sued in a court of law for any statement that he or she makes while engaging in debate in the House of Commons or in its proceedings.

The reason for the rule is simple: Parliamentarians must be able to speak their mind freely to ensure that the best policies are attained through the Parliamentary process and at no time should a Parliamentarian feel that they should hold their tongue during the search for that truth.

The privilege was never intended to set them above the law- it was intented to give them certain exemptions from the law so that they could execute their duties.

Maybe in 1860. Now we have a Parliament of animals.

What almost happened yesterday in the House of Commons made me ashamed to be a Canadian. Our Prime Minister, in a response to a totally unrelated question, got up on his feet and was prepared to read into Hansard "the fact" that the family members of a Liberal MP may be called as witnesses to an inquiry, and were the reason why the Liberals had changed their view on the Anti-Terrorism Act. It was in a newspaper, so it must have been relevant.

It was a premeditated, disgusting, racist, intentional and deliberate attempt to smear the reputation of the family of a political opponent to score points. In my opinion, the PM has never looked less Prime-Ministerial - worse than any other PM I can remember.

It reminded me of the allegations of corruption made by several Canadian Alliance MPs against former Prime Minister Jean Chretien (L - COME BACK). With no evidence of impropriety, they made serious allegations against him personally. None, however, had the stones to say it outside of the House of Commons- even when Jean-baby begged them to. He begged them to not be cowards hiding behind Parliamentary tradition and repeat their statements in the hallway. There were no takers.

And yes, I am aware the family can sue the news paper that reported the story. That is not the point.

The point is that I can call you a murderer in the House of Commons and absolutely no harm can befall me other than the finger wagging of the Speaker on a (ironically named) point of personal privilege. Even if I retract the statement, you can't get the guts back into the baby after it has already be cut open.

In other words, the letter of the rule is being used to defend actions that are not specifically contemplated by the purpose of the rule: Direct political smears against one another.

I think that Members of Parliament should have to be accountable for the things they say in both the political and civil arenas. Wow, what a bold standard for the people who are supposedly our leaders.