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.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh, every time a law and order bill is introduced by the government, ministers and members urge us to support the bill. The government is also asking us to support and understand its decision with respect to the F-35s.
In your opinion, why would they not want to provide the information we have requested? Why do we have the feeling they're trying to hide something?
March 16th, 2011 / 11:15 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I am not a politician. I do not have the intelligence to ascertain why the government would decide not to disclose information about the F-35s or other types of information. Those are political issues. It is up to the government to explain this. Mr. Chairman, I have no answer that could be of assistance to members of Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
I'd like to ask a more technical question, Mr. Walsh.
If the conclusion reached were that the government had acted in contempt of Parliament, would that automatically become a matter of confidence?
11:15 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
With respect to issue of contempt as opposed to confidence, I believe Mr. McGuinty noted that there have been no previous cases where a minority government has acted in contempt of Parliament.
In my opinion, it has never happened that a government acted in contempt of Parliament because there is the option of stating that the government has lost your confidence. Why would it be a matter of contempt when there is always the option of raising a question of confidence? What exactly are you doing to the government by saying that it has acted in contempt of Parliament? If a citizen is convicted of contempt, you have certain forms of recourse against that citizen, but what can you do against the government? One of the things you can do is introduce a motion of non-confidence. That is the explanation, in my opinion. You move directly to a motion of non-confidence, rather than trying to demonstrate that it's guilty of contempt.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you.
Since the beginning of the session, various questions of privilege have been submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and there tend to be more and more of them. Based on your experience, what is your assessment of the current institutional issue? What can be concluded from this? In terms of the future, how important is what we are discussing today? Is it an important issue for our institution at this time?
11:20 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That is a very broad question.
In the public domain, there are debates about access to public information and government information. That is the issue under discussion here: access for members of Parliament to government information to help them carry out their parliamentary duties. Outside the House of Commons, the same questions are asked with respect to the private domain in particular. People need information. This is an important matter.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
So, the issue is connected to access to information, so that members of Parliament can do their job.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Could you tell us what options are available to the committee responsible for reviewing this question of privilege?
11:20 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Here we are talking about a question of privilege raised against the government. One option would be to say that the government has acted in a manner that is contrary to the privileges of the House of Commons, period—or a motion could be introduced stating that the House has lost confidence in the government, or you could criticize the government and leave it at that.
In my opinion, the government remains in office because the House has confidence in it. That is the fundamental and overriding principle. If you do not have confidence in the government, you must put a motion of that nature to a vote.
You could also vote against the bills. In the current context, you could vote against the bills for that reason. You always have the option of voting against government bills.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Could you interpret the Speaker's ruling for us? He stated in his ruling that he noted the information had not been produced, but it was the lack of an explanation or rationale that surprised him the most. Why did he say that? I heard him say that and the lack of explanation seemed to have made a big impression on him. Why did the Speaker take the liberty of adding that comment in his ruling?
11:20 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I don't want to put words in the Speaker's mouth. I do not know specifically what the Speaker had in mind, but I believe that, according to his interpretation of the situation, the government had decided not to provide the documents to the House of Commons. As a reasonable man, he believes that an explanation should be given as to the reason why documents are not being provided to Parliament. However, he received no explanation, prompting him to state that the committee should look more deeply into the issue in order to ascertain why no explanation was provided to Parliament regarding the information requested by the committee.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Monsieur Godin, for a couple of minutes. We have a couple of other members who would like to get questions in, those who haven't had an opportunity yet.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Walsh, you are the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. If you are asked for legal advice about a bill, even though you haven't had an opportunity to read it, do you think you would be able to provide advice?
11:20 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Not now, because I would have to examine the bill.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Listen carefully. If you are asked for advice about a bill and have no opportunity to see the bill, will you still provide advice even though you haven't seen the bill?
11:20 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Could you repeat that again?
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
If I say I want your interpretation of a certain bill but I don't give you the bill, could you make...?
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
You know why I'm asking that question. It's the same thing here. They're asking us to vote on a budget, and I don't know what it is, so it's pretty hard to do it.