MONTREAL (CN) - The Supreme Court of Canada deemed a national security law constitutional on Friday, siding against a law professor who argued that criminalizing the disclosure of confidential information could discourage special intelligence committee members from speaking out about civil rights violations.
In 2022, an Ontario law professor, Ryan Alford, challenged the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, claiming the 2017 law infringes on the lawmakers' right to free speech and debate.
The Supreme Court of Canada found the lower court properly dismissed Alford's challenge of the act, as it is up to Parliament to define limitations on its own privileges.
Justice Malcolm Rowe noted the restriction is "limited to the immunity held by those who choose to sit on the committee" and "does not affect free speech in Parliament more broadly."
The NSICP Act created a special committee of parliamentarians to review national security and intelligence activities, with the goal of increasing transparency and accountability within the government. The committee notably reviews national security and intelligence operations, examining the laws, policies, budgets and administrative systems that govern them.
By becoming members of the committee, parliamentarians waive their constitutional immunity, which Alford argued could expose them to prosecution for disclosing confidential information, with prison sentences of up to 14 years. According to Alford, parliamentarians must be able to speak and act freely without fear of prosecution.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice sided with Alford's arguments, but the Ontario Court of Appeal soon overturned the ruling, concluding that the Canadian Constitution allows Parliament to pass legislation that explicitly narrows or modifies its own privileges.
At the Supreme Court of Canada hearing in November 2025, Canada's attorney general argued that waiving parliamentary immunity is constitutional because the members themselves are "willingly accepting that their privileges and immunity are going to be constrained by virtue of their participation in the committee," said Catherine Lawrence, representing Canada's chief law officer.
During two days of oral arguments, the justices expressed concerns about overstepping on legislative authority by exercising judicial review on the issue. However, some also worried about the power that the NSICOP Act grants to the executive branch over the legislature.
"It seems to me that the executive has a broad power here to stop the disclosure of information," Justice Suzanne Cote said.
Cote later wrote a dissenting opinion on the matter, departing from the rest of the high court by determining the law "fundamentally undermines the separation of powers." She called the restriction of parliamentary privilege "far from being narrow," claiming it "undermines Canada's constitutional architecture."
"Committee members will be less able to represent the interests of their constituents if they cannot speak on issues that may well be of immense importance," she wrote.
Source: Courthouse News Service
