Committees / Committee Powers

Sending for persons: refusal by the Government to allow officials to appear before an ad hoc committee

November 1, 2001

Debates, pp. 6846-7

On November 1, 2001, John Bryden (Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Aldershot) rose on a question of privilege regarding the work of an ad hoc committee comprised of private Members, including himself, from both sides of the House studying the Access to Information Act. While noting that the matter might not pertain to privilege, Mr. Bryden argued that he and his colleagues sitting on the committee were prevented from hearing from Government officials and officials from Crown corporations as the Government issued orders for them not to appear before the committee. He further contended that the ad hoc committee was set up under “exceptional circumstances”, namely, that the committee conduct its study and present a report before a “bureaucratic task force” was expected to do so in the fall, thus requiring the committee to meet during the summer adjournment of the House. Mr. Bryden went on to note that the committee did hold hearings over the summer and prepared a report. He concluded his remarks by suggesting that he was impeded in his ability to carry out his duties as a Member of Parliament, and that as a result, his privileges had been contravened. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued that privilege related only to formal proceedings of Parliament, which the ad hoc committee was not. Mr. Reagan asserted that Mr. Bryden’s privileges could not, therefore, have been breached. He also indicated that contrary to Mr. Bryden’s claim, the Government remained willing to have its officials brief the members of the committee in private, instead of in public as Mr. Bryden had insisted upon, and quoted from a letter from Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) to Mr. Bryden to that effect adding that the need for a briefing to be held in private was to avoid influencing ongoing court cases on access to information.^[1]

The Speaker ruled immediately that it was not a question of privilege since, although Members do have certain privileges, these do not include the right to call Government officials before an ad hoc committee and to insist on answers to questions. He added that, had the Member wished to have a committee of the House struck, he could have introduced a motion to do so under Private Members’ Business, empowering it in the process to send for persons, papers and records. The Speaker concluded that the ad hoc group had no powers to compel attendance and it was consequently legitimate for officials to decline to appear before it.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair wants to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader for his remarks and the hon. Member for Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Aldershot for raising this matter.

I am inclined to say that the matter was raised at the earliest possible time, given the hon. Member deliberately waited until his report was ready so that as it were, his question of privilege had grown into full blossom by the time he brought it to the attention of the House.

Having raised the question and suggested that it was a question of privilege, I have to say that in my view the matter is not a question of privilege.

The Member who raised this issue is an experienced Member. I think he is well aware that Members do have certain privileges but I do not believe that any one of us has the right to call before us a Government official and insist on answers to questions. That is in effect what he is saying because by his own admission in the course of his remarks, he stated that the committee that he was chairing was an ad hoc caucus of Members. It clearly was not a committee of this House. Had he wished to have a committee in place, he could have introduced a motion under Private Members’ Business to establish a committee for the very purpose of studying the materials and issues that his ad hoc group in fact studied.

Had he done so, I have no doubt that the motion establishing the committee would have empowered the committee in accordance with Standing Order 108(1) to send for persons, papers and records. That great power that our committees have would have enabled his committee to summon these officials, whether or not the Government House Leader said they were to appear, because had they failed to appear, the committee could have reported the matter to the House. Of course the House could then have summoned the individuals to appear at the Bar of the House for chastisement for contempt of Parliament.

An hon. Member: Caning.

The Speaker: An hon. Member suggests caning but that has not been in our lexicon of punishments. However, there is the fact that people can be called to the Bar of the House and chastised for contempt.

Of course the ad hoc group had no such powers and so it was perfectly legitimate in my opinion for some to say, “No, you may not appear”, and for people to refuse to appear either on instructions or because they themselves chose not to appear, because the ad hoc group had no power to compel attendance.

In the circumstances, I am unable to find there was any breach of the hon. Member’s privileges. I would urge him in future to look to the other options that are available to him and to all hon. Members in asserting their claims, by going through the proper channel of a parliamentary committee with all the wondrous powers that each of those committees enjoys.