Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: Government advertising alleged to have anticipated a decision of the House

May 29, 2008

Debates, pp. 6276-8

On May 15, 2008, Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough–Agincourt) and Olivia Chow (Trinity–Spadina) each rose on questions of privilege with respect to advertisements placed in various newspapers by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.^[1] Mr. Karygiannis and Ms. Chow argued that these advertisements, on the subject of changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act included in Bill C-50, Budget Implementation Act, 2008, presented misleadning information that obstructed and prejudiced the proceedings of the House and its committees, anticipated a decision of the House, constituted an unauthorized expenditure of public funds for partisan purposes, and were, therefore, a contempt of Parliament. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) challenged the timeliness of the question of privilege, noted that the funds for the advertisements had already been approved by Parliament when it had adopted interim supply, argued that the wording of the advertisements respected parliamentary jurisdiction by clearly stating that the measures were currently before Parliament, and concluded that the question was in fact a matter for debate. After a further intervention from Mr. Karygiannis, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

The Speaker delivered his ruling on May 29, 2008. He indicated that he was satisfied that Mr. Karygiannis had raised the question of privilege in a timely manner. He noted that the expenditure of money for the advertisements in question was not a procedural matter. He added that the wording in the advertisements made it clear that the matters discussed were currently before Parliament and were merely proposals. The advertisements did not misrepresent the proceedings of the House, nor did they presume the outcome of deliberations on the Bill. Consequently the Speaker concluded that there was no prima facie case of privilege or contempt of Parliament.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough–Agincourt and the hon. Member for Trinity–Spadina on May 15, 2008, concerning the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s newspaper advertisements entitled “Reducing Canada’s Immigration Backlog”.

I would like to thank the hon. Members for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention.

In his remarks, the hon. Member for Scarborough–Agincourt brought to the attention of the House that advertisements had been placed in newspapers by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration regarding proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He contended that the advertisements promoted certain changes to the Act as contained in section 6 of Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

As hon. Members know, Bill C-50 has not yet been adopted by this House or by Parliament. The hon. Member for Scarborough–Agincourt argued that these advertisements and the use of public funds to pay for them demonstrated contempt for this House on the part of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In her submission, the hon. Member for Trinity–Spadina also contended that these advertisements constituted a contempt of Parliament by presenting misleading information that has obstructed and prejudiced the proceedings of this House. The hon. Member likened this situation to a case in 1989 when the Government of the day placed an advertisement in newspapers to announce changes to the federal sales tax, which had not been adopted yet by Parliament.

In support of the contention that the use of public funds for these ads constituted a contempt of Parliament, the hon. Member cited an October 17, 1980 ruling by Madam Speaker Sauvé regarding an advertising campaign on the Government’s constitutional position.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued, for his part, that the question of privilege was not raised at the earliest available opportunity since the advertisements in question had first appeared in newspapers on April 15. To support this point, he quoted passages from House of Commons Procedure and Practice on pages 122 and 124 which state that the Speaker must be satisfied that a question of privilege was raised at the earliest opportunity.

In addressing the issue of the use of public money, the Government House Leader stated that the funds used were not dependent on the passage of Bill C-50 but, in fact, had been approved in March of this year as part of interim supply.

In addition, he maintained that the advertisements were written in such a way as to take into account what he described as the core principle of Mr. Speaker Fraser’s 1989 ruling, that is:

… that advertising undertaken by the Government should not presume or suggest that a decision had been made already when it had not been taken by the House of Commons or by Parliament.

He stressed that words and the tone used in the advertisements fully respected the jurisdiction and privileges of Parliament since they did not presume that Parliament had already taken a decision on the matter. To that end, he quoted from the advertisements in question.

In assessing the merits of any question of privilege raised in the House, the Chair is always mindful of the important point raised by the Government House Leader regarding timing. It is true that Members wishing to raise a question of privilege must do so at the earliest opportunity.

However, there is an important nuance the Government House Leader may have overlooked. In this case, as in others, it is not so much that the event or issue complained of took place at a given time, but rather that the Members bringing the matter to the attention of the House did so as soon as practicable after they became aware of the situation.

The Chair has always exercised discretion on this point given the need to balance the need for timeliness with the important responsibility Members have of marshalling facts and arguments before raising matters of such import in the House.

In the case at hand, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was asked about the advertisements when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 13, less than two days before the matter was raised in the House. Given these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Members for Scarborough–Agincourt and Trinity–Spadina have respected the timing requirements of our established procedure for raising questions of privilege.

The Chair must now determine whether or not the placement of the advertisements related to certain provisions of Bill C-50 has interfered with the ability of Members to carry out their responsibilities as Members of Parliament. In doing so, the cases cited by the Member for Trinity–Spadina have been most instructive.

As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated in his ruling in the Debates of October 10, 1989, on pages 4457 to 4461:

In order for an obstruction to take place, there would have had to be some action which prevented the House or Members from attending to their duties, or which cast such serious reflections on a Member that he or she was not able to fulfill his or her responsibilities. I would submit that this is not the case in the present situation.

Despite not finding a prima facie case of privilege in that case, Mr. Speaker Fraser did raise serious concerns about the situation, stating that the ad was “objectionable and should never be repeated”.

With respect to the content and the cost of the advertisements, in the ruling given by Madam Speaker Sauvé on October 17, 1980, she stated on page 3781 of the House of Commons Debates:

The fact that certain Members feel they are disadvantaged by not having the same funds to advertise as does the government, which could possibly be a point of debate, as a matter of impropriety or under any other heading, does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege unless such advertisements themselves constitute a contempt of the House, and to do so there would have to be some evidence that they represent a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons or misrepresentations of Members.

As I indicated when this matter was raised, the issue of the money spent for these advertisements is clearly not a procedural matter.

In addition to these examples, another can be found in 1997, when a question of privilege was raised concerning advertisements made by Health Canada in daily newspapers regarding anti-tobacco legislation that had not yet been adopted by the House. In that case, Mr. Speaker Parent ruled, on March 13, 1997, in the Debates, on pages 8987 to 8988, that the advertisement did not give the impression that the House had already passed then Bill C-71 and, therefore, he could not find a prima facie question of privilege.

It is with these precedents in mind that I reviewed the advertisements in question. They contain phrases such as “the Government of Canada is proposing measures”, “These important measures, once in effect,” and “These measures are currently before Parliament”. In my view, the advertisements clearly acknowledge that these measures are not yet in place. I am therefore unable to find evidence of a misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House or of any presumption of the outcome of its deliberations.

While the hon. Members for Scarborough–Agincourt and Trinity–Spadina may disagree with the title and content of these advertisements, this is more a matter of debate than of procedure or privilege. The Chair must therefore conclude, for the same reasons as my predecessors did, that the case before us today does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege or contempt of Parliament.

Once again, I thank the hon. Members for Scarborough–Agincourt and Trinity–Spadina for having brought this matter to the attention of the House.