Evidence of meeting #29 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The first step with respect to a question of privilege being raised would be for the Speaker to determine if there is a prima facie case of privilege or not, and whether a motion can be presented thereafter.
My sense is that it is a debatable motion, but I would defer to experts, and my colleagues in procedural services would have more expertise than I do on that particular procedural point.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dufresne, if I understood your testimony correctly, we have to distinguish between a summons to testify and a summons to be accountable. The principle of ministerial responsibility, which the two ministers in this case were invoking, would apply if we were asking for accountability from anyone. But we are within our rights to ask for individuals to testify, even though they are members of the staff of those ministers.
Did I understand correctly?
1:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
What I am saying is that individuals do not have immunity strictly by reason of their positions. It may affect the relevance of what they are asked in terms of their level of responsibility, their role, and the information they have in their possession.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay. Let me ask you one more question, Mr. Dufresne.
Clearly, if the House sanctions an individual for failing to testify, that is one thing. The individual did not obey the order and there are consequences for that. I imagine there are precedents for those kinds of situations.
However, are there precedents for the sanctions that the House might impose on a minister who orders someone not to obey an order of the House?
1:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
We have discussed the precedent in 2010. In that case, it wasn't an order of the House, it was an order of the committee. But a motion to report the situation to the House was still introduced. That motion was defeated but it did raise the same kind of concern.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
So I gather that there is no precedent for the sanctions. Could the Speaker of the House tell the minister that he is guilty of contempt of Parliament and remove him from his position or consider that he's no longer a member of Parliament, for example?
Are there consequences of that nature? Has that ever happened?
2 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
As for the sanctions when a concern is raised about the information provided, the House can refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In the 2011 precedent I mentioned, the government had not produced the information that was asked for and had invoked Cabinet confidence. Basically, there was an order from the House and a motion stating that the government had lost the confidence of the House.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay, Mr. Dufresne. I will move to another question.
At this stage, we have established that people have not obeyed orders from the House, and we are going to report to the situation to the House.
Do we have to suggest sanctions or consequences for that, or do we simply report the situation to the House and leave it to the House to decide itself on the consequences as a matter of privilege?
2 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It is up to the committee to decide what it wants to include in its report to the House. On page 154 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, mention is made of describing the situation, summarizing the events, naming any individuals involved, and indicating any concerns as to a breach of privilege or contempt. If the committee wants to suggest any measure to the House, it may do so.
Ultimately, the House will have to decide on the matter and determine whether it has enough information to do so.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
We're going to turn to Mr. Angus now for two and a half minutes.
2 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Being that it is past two o'clock, I move to adjourn.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That is not a debatable motion.
We'll move to a recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Mr. Dufresne, thanks so much for being with us this afternoon. We appreciate your coming on short notice.
This meeting is now adjourned.
