Evidence of meeting #49 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was costs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Well, without question, the Speaker's rulings are addressed to every member of the House of Commons. He does not rule...he does not address one part of the House; he addresses the whole House.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So he's not just addressing opposition parties. He is not just addressing the mover of the motion, Mr. Brison, my colleague. He is effectively addressing parliamentarians, and really what he is doing is talking to 34 million Canadians, isn't he?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Yes, although in parts of his ruling his remarks may be evidently directed toward one part of the House or another, but generally the whole ruling is directed to all members of Parliament and, through the process, to Canadians generally, yes.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Right. So when he says there is an unfettered power of the House of Commons to demand government documents, he's saying that Canadians have a right to documents. Isn't that right?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Well, that could be the inference you draw from that. He is speaking to the parliamentary procedural issues and speaking about the rights of this particular institution vis-à-vis the government.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So if he says there's a prima facie case of privileges being basically affected here for MPs, in plain English it means that in this case MPs really have a right to know. He's not only saying that opposition MPs have a right to know, and a constitutional responsibility; he's saying that government members have a duty and a right to know and a constitutional responsibility, isn't he?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Arguably, yes, that's included within the intent of what he's saying.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So presumably, if MPs of all stripes, of all parties in the House of Commons, were listening to the objective ruling of the Speaker, they would take it upon themselves to take heed and take note of their constitutional responsibility in this case to make sure their constituents in their ridings get the numbers, get the facts, and that they understand what these 18 bills on crime are going to cost. I mean, after all, government members and opposition members who are called upon to vote on these issues are spending Canadians' money.
Couldn't Canadians reasonably conclude that all members of Parliament, including Conservative members, have an obligation to get the numbers and disclose them?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I think the Speaker in his ruling, where he commented that there are no reasons provided, says:
It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge. A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so.
That's a quote from his ruling. So I think I'm answering your question, Mr. McGuinty. Mr. Speaker was saying that he didn't see reasons for the information not being provided, and in the face of the parliamentary right to have the information, he would expect that if the information is not being provided there would be some explanation, and he doesn't see one. He is not saying there are no such reasons. He's just saying “I don't see one”, so it warrants being looked into by this committee more closely.
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you, Mr. Walsh, for being here.
I find this tremendously intriguing and interesting, and with someone of your background in Parliament.... For a relatively new parliamentarian, this is a fascinating event we are passing through here.
The opposition has passed many motions in committee that are of a wide-ranging nature, and in a minority Parliament.... Do you see this happening much more in a minority Parliament, this wide-ranging passing of motions and things, and different committees and different reports?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Obviously, the range of subject matter being considered by committees in a majority Parliament might be more limited than is the case in a minority Parliament insofar as the opposition parties might have more influence on what matters are undertaken by committees.
In the House there are the same number of supply days, and the range of subject matter considered in the House in a majority versus minority government might not vary that much.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
These motions and reports coming out of committee, when you say you might have seen more lately, do they send public servants sometimes on wild goose chases looking for information that may or may not exist? Do they sometimes have unreasonable timelines, say, five days, to search for information that may or may not actually exist in the first place?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I'd hardly want to suggest that any requests for information coming from the House would result in a wild goose chase. However, as I mentioned earlier, your witness, Mr. Cappe, might be able to speak from experience and answer that question. I would prefer to leave that question for him to answer.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Right.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been previous Speakers' rulings that have mentioned the tyranny of the majority. This goes back to what Mr. Godin was saying. At what point does the tyranny of the majority run roughshod over the ability of parliamentarians from all parties to do the job they were sent here to do?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
How do I answer that politely? I was here for a number of years during majority Parliaments and there were many who felt there was a tyranny of the majority. Typically members on the opposite side of the House at that time thought there was a tyranny of the majority. Minorities always feel majorities are tyrannies, to some degree. I don't think it's the case here that we're looking at tyrannies that are any more problematic than was the case in a majority Parliament. It's the nature of the beast and it's the nature of the numbers. If you've got the numbers, you win; if you don't have the numbers, you don't win.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
So you could say that as a government, when you're going through this under a minority Parliament, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, when it comes down to these rulings.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Yes. The Speaker is neutral. He addresses the issues on the principles.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Right. And when you do lose a decision, the onus is on the government to comply.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The onus is on the government to comply with Speakers' rulings for the purposes of parliamentary business, correct.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you.
I hate to quibble with Mr. McGuinty's question, but in light of parliamentarians' quest for documents, does that automatically give them the right to release documents to the public? Is that correct?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In legal terms, documents and information that come into the hands of members of Parliament in their capacity as members of a House committee--and I said this earlier to another committee--are subject to whatever rules the committee might make about disclosure of those documents. WIth respect to other documents that might come into the possession of a member of Parliament--the proverbial brown envelope information--it's up to the member of Parliament what she does with it. But she may run the risk of bringing a lawsuit against herself if she publicly discloses information that's defamatory of an individual or in some other respect contravenes the law. In a proceeding of the House or of a committee, those are privileged and there can't be any legal proceedings flowing from any disclosure in that context.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you.
In previous parliaments it has been traditional, and you would know this from your vast experience here, to have respect for cabinet confidence particularly in matters of national security. Have we seen changes in that recently where we've lost that respect? What can we do to get back that respect, that balance between cabinet confidence and respecting Parliament?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In my view, that balance is obtained through trust and confidence. The parliamentary system is based on confidence. If the House has confidence in the government, there are times when the House will take the government's word for things. The theory is, once you lose confidence and you don't trust the government anymore, you vote against it and you go for an election.
Somewhere in between those extremes there is the situation where members of the House may have reservations about the veracity of what the government is saying. Arguably it's within the government's control as to whether it is believed or not believed, depending on whether what it says is credible or not over time. Every government faces that task of maintaining its credibility, yet at the same time not disclosing information of a kind that should not be disclosed.
