This pivotal case could redefine parliamentary free speech and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

For the full press release issued by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, see the publisher’s website here.

November 5: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is set to intervene in a significant Supreme Court case, Alford v Canada (Attorney General), on November 5 and 6, which could redefine free speech in Parliament.

The case, initiated by Prof. Ryan Alford, challenges section 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act (NSICOP Act), which restricts MPs from disclosing certain information in Parliament, even under the threat of criminal penalties of up to 14 years in prison.

Prof. Alford argues the NSICOP Act undermines parliamentary privilege, which he asserts should only be altered through a constitutional amendment. The CCF contends that only Parliament has the authority to regulate its own speech, and that allowing the executive branch to impose such restrictions violates the independence of Parliament.

Christine Van Geyn, CCF’s Director of Litigation, emphasizes that the NSICOP Act intimidates MPs and threatens the very foundation of democratic debate in Canada:

“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 case has garnered national attention, particularly after Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre expressed concerns about the implications of the NSICOP Act on his ability to speak freely in Parliament after declining to obtain security clearance for a classified report on foreign interference.