Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: disclosure of a report before its tabling in the House; availability to Members

March 29, 2001

Debates, p. 2498

On March 29, 2001, following the tabling of the Annual Report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission by the Speaker, John Williams (St. Albert) rose on a question of privilege with regard to the disclosure of the Report to the press before its tabling to the House. Mr. Williams argued that both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice) were in contempt of Parliament.^[1] He also reminded the House that he rose on a similar question of privilege on February 15, 2001.^[2] Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), while agreeing with the principles of what the Member raised, objected to the allegation that the Minister was personally involved, as the Commission had submitted its Report directly to the Speaker for tabling and not to the Government. Another Member also spoke to the matter.^[3]

The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately. He stated that the Report had been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Since the complaint involved an Officer of the House, he could not see how it necessarily involved a breach of privilege at that time. However, he did say that it seemed that the appropriate course was for the Committee to undertake the study of this question. He also suggested that since the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was looking at a similar question, perhaps they could also consider the matter. He concluded that if the Committee were to find that something inappropriate had occurred, he would allow the Member or the Committee to raise the matter again.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: We have a situation here where a report, which was prepared by an Officer of the House of Commons,^[4] a person who reports to the House of Commons directly, has obviously been given to the media, based on the information I am hearing in the House today.

The Report stands permanently referred to the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the House. It seems to me that the appropriate course in the circumstances is for that Committee to undertake its study of the Report, as I am sure it will in due course. It is free to call the head of the Commission and anyone else it sees fit to come and explain what has happened and the circumstances. It seems to me that would be the appropriate course.

Should the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, as part of the work it is doing on the question of release of documents that has come to it as a result of my previous ruling, want to look at the matter, it is of course free to do so.

What I would suggest to the hon. Member for St. Albert, the Government House Leader, the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough and all hon. Members is that we let this go to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee.^[5] If the Committee has concerns about what has happened and feels that something inappropriate happened, I will allow the hon. Member for St. Albert, if he wishes, to bring this matter back to the House. We will treat it as a matter of privilege and deal with it at that point.

However, I think that since this is a matter involving an Officer of the House, I do not see that today there has been necessarily a breach of the privileges. The matter can be investigated by a committee. The committee can come back to the House or the Member can come back to the House and raise it as a question of privilege when we have heard the evidence on it. There will be evidence. This matter is before the Committee and making a finding today that sends it to the Committee again is unhelpful.

I am aware that the Procedure and House Affairs Committee is looking at the other matter as a result of my ruling and I am sure that should it choose to do so, it could look into this matter also, but certainly the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee^[6] can do so.

I hope that hon. Members can deal with it there and then, if we have to, we will come back to the House and deal with it here.

Later that day, Mr. Williams rose on a question of privilege with regard to the availability of the Report, arguing that even though it had been tabled earlier in the day, he had not been able to obtain a copy and he considered this an affront to the House. The Acting Speaker (Réginald Bélair) replied that he would take the matter under advisement and would consult with the Speaker.^[7]

On April 2, 2001, the Acting Speaker delivered his ruling. After reviewing the situation, he stated that he had determined that the copies of the Report had, in fact, been available for distribution, but that they had been packed in boxes, and had been located underneath a second report from the Commission. The Acting Speaker apologized to Members for any inconvenience caused by the confusion and explained that steps had been taken to avoid such a situation in the future.^[8]