Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: Officers of Parliament; alleged false testimony at a committee meeting; prima facie

November 6, 2003

Debates, p. 9229

On November 4, 2003, Derek Lee (Scarborough–Rouge River) presented to the House the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates which documented how the former Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski, had deliberately misled the Committee, and provided false and misleading information to it.^[1] Later in the sitting, Mr. Lee rose on a question of privilege to charge Mr. Radwanski with contempt of Parliament based on the contents of the Report, where the Committee had concluded that an issue of contempt was present and asked the House to find that Mr. Radwanski was in contempt of Parliament. After hearing from several other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2] On November 5, 2003, Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose to ask that the Speaker clarify in his ruling the responsibilities of citizens appearing before House of Commons committees, and to outline for Members what courses of action would be available to Members should a prima facie case of privilege be found. Intervening on the matter, Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) requested unanimous consent to move a motion to find Mr. Radwanski in contempt of Parliament. Consent for the motion was denied.^[3]

On November 6, 2003, the Speaker delivered his ruling. The Speaker stated that it was for the House, not for the Speaker, to decide what course of action to take in the case of a prima facie breach of privilege, and for committees to make their expectations known to witnesses, adding that while it was not for the Speaker to articulate what committees’ expectations of witnesses should be, it is important for committees and the House to be able to rely on the testimony of witnesses. Referring to the matters set out in the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, he found that a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House had occurred and invited Mr. Lee to move his motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough–Rouge River on November 4, 2003, concerning the conduct of Mr. George Radwanski before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Scarborough–Rouge River for having raised an issue which is of importance to all Members and to the institution of the House of Commons. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for New Westminster–Coquitlam–Burnaby, the Rt. Hon. Member for Calgary Centre and the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre for their interventions.

On November 5, 2003, the hon. Government House Leader rose in the House to contribute to the discussion. Acknowledging the seriousness of this matter and the importance of the ruling of the Chair in this case, the hon. House Leader called on the Speaker to render a ruling which would also provide two statements. To use his own words, the House Leader looked to the ruling, first:

… to make it clear to every citizen who may come before a committee of the House the responsibilities that he or she has… and the consequences that may follow from a failure… to uphold those responsibilities… 

And secondly:

… to provide the House with an outline of its options should [the Chair] find a prima facie case of contempt… 

The hon. Government House Leader went on to discuss various issues surrounding the possible summoning of a private citizen to the Bar of the House. I wish to thank the hon. Government House Leader for his intervention.

Before rendering my decision, I want to address the two requests he has made to the Chair.

First, let me deal with the suggestion that my ruling should lay out the options before the House in this matter. As hon. Members know, the role of the Speaker in matters of privilege is well defined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 122, which states:

The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker’s opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration.… 

… The Speaker’s ruling does not extend to deciding whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed—a question which can [only]^[4] be decided by the House itself.

It is clear to me that the Speaker’s role in matters of privilege and contempt is well established in our practice. In my view, it is not the role of the Speaker to suggest how the House may wish to deal with a question of privilege or a case of contempt, always assuming that the House has decided that it is faced with such an offence. The ruling will therefore deal only on whether or not the Chair has found a prima facie case of contempt.

Secondly, it has been suggested that the ruling lay down guidelines for individuals appearing before committees of this House. However tempting the invitation, the Speaker cannot presume to articulate the expectations that committees have of the witnesses who come before them. Suffice it to say that I believe all hon. Members will agree with me when I say simply that committees of the House and, by extension, the House of Commons itself, must be able to depend on the testimony they receive, whether from public officials or private citizens. This testimony must be truthful and complete. When this proves not to be the case, a grave situation results, a situation that cannot be treated lightly.

In the situation before us, I have carefully read the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates tabled in the House. The Committee’s Report sets out the testimony of Mr. George Radwanski, the former Privacy Commissioner, that it found misleading and concludes that, in its view, the former Privacy Commissioner should be found in contempt of the House. The Report reviews the conflicts in the testimony and, it seems to me, draws its conclusions in a manner that seems reasonable in the circumstances.

Accordingly, I conclude that the matters set out in the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates are sufficient to support a prima facie finding of a breach of the privileges of this House. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Scarborough–Rouge River to move his motion.

Immediately after the Speaker ruled, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South), read a letter from Mr. Radwanski in which he apologized to the Committee and to Parliament for the mistakes that had been made during his tenure as Privacy Commissioner. Mr. Alcock sought and received unanimous consent to table the letter.^[5] Mr. Lee then stated that he would not move the privilege motion (which would have called Mr. Radwanski to appear before the Bar of the House), and asked that the House agree to bring the matter to a close.^[6] After other Members had spoken to the matter, John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast) advised that the House Leaders were discussing it, and received unanimous consent for the House to return to it later in the sitting.^[7] Later in the sitting, Mr. Lee sought and received unanimous consent for a motion acknowledging receipt of his letter of apology and finding Mr. Radwanski in contempt of the House.^[8]