Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation: access to information allegedly blocked by a public servant

February 4, 2008

Debates, pp. 2539-40

On January 29, 2008, Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) rose on a question of privilege arising from efforts on his part to obtain information from Health Canada on behalf of a constituent. He claimed that, while speaking to a public servant, he had been asked to confirm that he was a member of the opposition. This information, he had been told, was required so that the official could complete a detailed response form to determine what he could be told and to prepare the department should the matter be raised during Oral Questions. Mr. Szabo noted that the public servant had also informed him that, if a constituent had called directly, the answer would have been provided to them immediately. He concluded that he had been impeded in his ability to serve his constituents. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement. Later Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) responded that asking whether a Member was a member of the opposition was not a standard practice, and undertook to inform public servants that it was neither a relevant nor an appropriate question to ask.^[1] On January 31, 2008, the Minister again spoke to the matter, explaining the standard process followed for enquiries and advising that Mr. Szabo had been provided with the information he had sought. The Minister also confirmed that the forms, which had been inherited from the previous Government, had since been modified to remove all references to a Member’s party affiliation. In reply, Mr. Szabo insisted that the Minister had misled the House, that what had transpired was not as described by the Minister and that the information he had requested had not been supplied. The Speaker, in taking the matter under advisement, encouraged the Minister and the Member to meet to resolve the issue.^[2]

The Speaker delivered his ruling on February 4, 2008. He noted that, while there were a number of important issues involved in the question, the issue of concern to the Chair was whether the manner in which public servants served Members dealing with constituency matters constituted a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt of the House. The Speaker acknowledged that legitimate concerns regarding the efficiency of the procedures used by public servants had been raised, but ruled that activities in and for constituencies generally fell outside of “proceedings in Parliament”, and accordingly, as the Member had not been obstructed in the performance of his parliamentary duties, there was no prima facie case of privilege or contempt of the House.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Before we turn to Government Orders, I have a ruling to give.

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, January 29, [2008]^[3], by the hon. Member for Mississauga South alleging that Members of the opposition were impeded in carrying out their responsibilities when requesting information from public servants.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for raising this matter and for providing the Chair with further comments since that time. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Joliette, the hon. Member for Vancouver East, and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House for their interventions when the matter was raised as well as the hon. Member for Yukon and the hon. Member for Scarborough–Rouge River who later provided their views on this issue. Finally, I thank the hon. Minister of Health for rising twice in the House to provide clarification on the procedures in his department and on steps the department is taking to ameliorate its practices.

In presenting his case, the Member for Mississauga South charged that officials at the Department of Health treated requests from Members of the opposition differently than those from Members of the governing party.

He indicated that when his staff tried to obtain information from the department on behalf of a constituent, officials asked his staff if the Member requesting the information was a member of the opposition.

Later, the hon. Member himself was informed by the department that in responding to Members, officials were required to fill out a form and monitor the details of the Member’s request.

The hon. Member argued that this requirement caused delays in his being given the information requested and he claimed further that the departmental official acknowledged that this same information would have been communicated immediately to constituents who called the department themselves. The hon. Member concluded that this approach constituted an impediment to his performance as a Member of Parliament.

The Members for Joliette and Vancouver East expressed serious concern regarding this particular case, noting the impact of this kind of conduct on the ability of opposition Members to fulfill their duties without obstruction.

The Member for Scarborough–Rouge River underlined that the process complained of constituted an obstruction to the work of Members because it delayed access to information which an ordinary citizen could obtain more expeditiously. He argued that this situation undermined the Members’ capacity to serve their constituents efficiently and well.

For his part, the Minister of Health, in his original intervention, indicated that it was not the standard operating procedure of the department to ask callers to identify the affiliation of the Member who requires the information.

Later, however, the Minister rose to explain that the department did indeed have responding officials fill out a form which included party affiliation of the questioner.

He went on to explain that this practice aimed simply to keep the department’s parliamentary affairs officials apprised of issues and the need for possible follow-up. He acknowledged that seeking to learn the party affiliation of inquiring MPs might be misconstrued and that the practice would be changed immediately.

The Chair sees two important issues in the case raised by the hon. Member for Mississauga South. The first focuses on public service procedures when providing information to Members of Parliament and the alleged difference in which such requests are processed depending on which side of the House the Member sits.

The second issue relates to a possible obstruction of Members’ ability to provide services to their constituents in a timely fashion, an obstruction that can create a perception in the mind of constituents that Members of Parliament are not able to serve their constituents effectively.

From the Chair’s point of view, however, the question is a good deal simpler: does the manner in which public servants serve Members of Parliament when dealing with constituency matters constitute a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt of the House?

In ruling on a question of privilege raised by two Members alleging that a department had directed its officials not to release information on certain projects, thus infringing on their ability to serve their constituents, Mr. Speaker Bosley indicated on May 15, 1985, at page 4769 of the Debates:

I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.

The 23rd edition of Erskine May on page 143 also refers to this principle:

Correspondence with constituents or official bodies, for example, and the provision of information sought by Members on matters of public concern will very often, depending on the circumstances of the case, fall outside the scope of “proceedings in Parliament” against which a claim of breach of privilege will be measured.

Furthermore, with respect to a similar question of privilege, Mr. Speaker Parent in a ruling on October 9, 1997, at page 687 of the Debates, stated:

—in order for a Member to claim that his privileges have been breached or that a contempt has occurred, he or she must have been functioning as a Member at the time of the alleged offence, that is, actually participating in a proceeding of Parliament. The activities of Members in their constituencies do not appear to fall within the definition of a “proceeding in Parliament”.

And he went on to say:

In instances where Members have claimed that they have been obstructed or harassed, not directly in their roles as elected representatives but while being involved in matters of a political or constituency related nature, Speakers have consistently ruled that this does not constitute a breach of privilege.

Let me assure the House that the Chair understands that all hon. Members wish to serve their constituents as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. Indeed, in another incarnation, as the representative for Kingston and the Islands, I share that laudable objective with all of my colleagues.

However, as Speaker, I must view matters through the rather narrow prism of parliamentary privilege. In that light, it does not appear to the Chair that the hon. Member has been obstructed in the performance of his parliamentary duties and therefore, I cannot find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

That said, the hon. Member for Mississauga South and other Members have raised legitimate concerns regarding the efficiency of the procedures used by public servants as they relate to requests from Members of Parliament. There are other avenues where Members could raise these concerns, notably in the appropriate standing committees, where they might enquire about the procedures in place in various departments and agencies and make helpful recommendations for assisting them to respond more efficiently and effectively to the needs of Members of Parliament seeking information to assist constituents.

I thank the hon. Member for Mississauga South for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.