Blog

OTTAWA – The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) will appear before the Supreme Court of Canada November 5 and 6 to intervene in Alford v Canada (Attorney General), a case that will determine whether the executive branch can limit the speech of members of Parliament in debate. The hearing can be viewed via live webcast beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET on this page.

The case, brought by Professor Ryan Alford of Lakehead University Faculty of Law, challenges section 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act (NSICOP Act). The NSICOP Act upends centuries of practice in Westminster governments, which provides Parliamentarians immunity from prosecution for statements made in Parliament. As written, the NSICOP Act forbids the disclosure, even in Parliament, of anything “that a department is taking measures to protect” – a broad category of information that is on the basis of pure discretion by the cabinet and prime minister. If an MP discloses such information, even in Parliament, the NSICOP can subject them to criminal penalties with a sentence up to 14 years in prison. Professor Alford argues that the NSICOP removes parliamentary privilege, and this cannot be done by ordinary legislation – it requires a constitutional amendment.

The CCF will intervene to argue that section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 empowers only Parliament to regulate its own speech, and that allowing the executive to make changes violates constitutionally-protected Parliamentary independence.

Christine Van Geyn, Director of Litigation for the CCF, said the NSICOP Act uses intimidation to restrict MPs’ speech and undermine one of the most fundamental safeguards of our democracy.

“There can be no Parliamentary freedom of speech in a system that delegates to the prime minister and cabinet any role in monitoring legislative debate,” said Van Geyn. “If members of Parliament can be threatened with prison for what they say in Parliament, free debate in Canada becomes an illusion. This law would give the executive the power to silence dissent in the very chamber meant to hold it accountable.”

The controversy surrounding the NSICOP has drawn national attention, particularly after Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre declined to obtain security clearance to review a classified report on foreign interference, citing concerns over limits on his ability to later speak in Parliament under the NSICOP Act.

The CCF is represented in this case by Paul-Erik Veel and Amy Goudge of Lenczner Slaght.