Committees / Committee Staff

Retention of expert advisors: remuneration; role and neutrality

April 23, 2002

Debates, pp. 10725-6

On April 15, 2002, Roger Gallaway (Sarnia–Lambton) rose on a question of privilege with regard to two expert advisors hired by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Mr. Gallaway argued that allowing the Department of Canadian Heritage to provide funding for expert advisors violated the principle of comity by failing to respect the separation that should exist between the House and the executive.^[1] This, he claimed, violated his privileges by denying him the services of advisors that were free from the executive in every respect. Furthermore, he argued that quotes in the media by one of the advisors concerning Members of the House and political events, violated the terms of the contract and cast more doubt on the neutrality and objectivity of the policy advice provided.^[2] Jim Abbott (Kootenay–Columbia) rose in support of the question of privilege.^[3] On April 16, 2002, the Chair of Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis) maintained that the Committee remained autonomous in making its decision with neither the Minister nor the Department having provided direction to the Committee. In light of this, Mr. Lincoln concluded that Mr. Gallaway’s privileges had not been breached.^[4] The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

The Speaker delivered his ruling on April 23, 2002. Since the Committee agreed to the hiring, fully aware that the advisors were paid by the Department of Canadian Heritage and since the contract was consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 120 permitting committees to retain expert staff, the Speaker had no role to play in the matter. With regard to the comments made by one of the advisors to the media, the Speaker ruled that they were neither unparliamentary nor could they be interpreted as impeding a Member in his or her ability to carry out his or her duties, thus there was no prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker further indicated that should the Committee feel that the public comments made by one of its advisors demonstrated a bias that could impede the advisor’s ability to provide impartial advice, the Committee could address the issue directly.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Monday, April 15, 2002 by the hon. Member for Sarnia–Lambton concerning the expert advisers hired by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the course of its study on Canadian broadcasting.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Sarnia–Lambton for drawing this matter to the attention of the Chair, as well as the hon. Member for Kootenay–Columbia and the hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Louis for their contributions on the question.

In raising this issue, the hon. Member for Sarnia–Lambton identified two points that he felt indicated that his privileges as a Member had been breached. First, the expert advisers hired by the Canadian Heritage Committee are being paid with funds provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage rather than by the House of Commons. In his view, this violates the proper separation that should exist between the House and the executive. The hon. Member further suggested that under these circumstances, it was not possible to regard the advice of these experts as neutral and objective. This impeded his ability to carry out his work as a member of the Canadian Heritage Committee and hence constituted a breach of his privileges.

The second point made by the hon. Member for Sarnia–Lambton involved comments made to the media by one of the expert advisors, Mr. David Taras. The hon. Member pointed out that the contract signed by the Committee’s advisors contained a provision restricting their ability to comment publicly on the work of the Committee.

He also alleged that public comments made by Mr. Taras violated the contract with the Committee and, by their political nature, cast further doubt on the neutrality and objectivity of the advice being provided to the Committee. The hon. Member for Sarnia–Lambton regarded this as further evidence that his privileges had been breached, a claim which was supported by the hon. Member for Kootenay–Columbia.

I think that the situation as set out in Members’ interventions is quite clear. As the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee indicate, the Committee as a whole agreed to retain the professional services of these two advisers, first on December 6, 2001 and again later, in its decision to renew the contract for the new fiscal year at its meeting of March 21, 2002. The Committee was fully aware on both these occasions that funds from the Department of Canadian Heritage were to be used to pay the advisers. Since the Committee on Canadian Heritage agreed to the hiring and since the Committee is empowered by Standing Order 120 to retain the services of expert staff, the Chair has no role to play in this situation.

Our practice, as described in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 804 and as set out in many previous rulings is quite clear: the Chair does not interfere in committee affairs. While members of the Canadian Heritage Committee may have some concerns about the Committee’s actions, those concerns ought more appropriately to be raised in the Committee itself.

In the second part of his argument, the hon. Member for Sarnia–Lambton raised the issue of recent comments made in the media by one of the two special advisers. He quoted from the contract made with the adviser in question, which states:

The Contractor shall not comment in public on the Committee’s deliberations relating to the broadcasting study…. However, the foregoing does not prohibit the experts from writing or speaking on broadcasting issues generally, such as would be the case in the normal conduct of their professional duties.

He concluded that the special adviser to the Committee “cannot offer opinion on the political fate of certain Members of this Chamber”.

Having reviewed the documentation made available to me, I cannot find that there has been any breach of parliamentary privilege in relation to the comments made to the media. These comments did not contain language that was unparliamentary and could not be construed as interference in the ability of any Member to carry out his or her parliamentary duties.

However, it is true that these comments were of a political nature and did relate to certain Members of this House and to political events. As the hon. Member for Kootenay–Columbia has stated, commentary of that nature would not be tolerated if it came from any of the staff of the House of Commons or the Library of Parliament. Should members of the Committee believe, as the hon. Member for Sarnia–Lambton says he does, that the comments portray a bias that could impede the contractor’s ability to provide impartial advice to the Committee, then the matter should be raised in Committee where the members may resolve the matter.

I thank all hon. Members who contributed to this discussion.