Evidence of meeting #132 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pps.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Mr. Robert, where were we? I want to go back to this issue again because, first of all, I said his name wrong. It was actually Joseph Maingot, not Robert. I want to thank him for his work.
I will read from his book:
But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a Member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with Members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case. Finally, there must be some connection between the material alleged to contain the interference and the parliamentary proceeding.
Therein lies, encapsulates, why it's a breach of my privileges as a member if it impedes my performance. I guess what you're saying is that it's more or less an insult, which leads to contempt.
12:45 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
There are two aspects to it. There is the issue of interference with a member. That's certainly true. If there were interference, if somebody actually tried to prevent you from doing your work in a way that was clearly improper and clearly had intentions, then you could make the claim that you were being impeded in your ability to function as a parliamentarian and raise that as a contempt.
That's you as an individual MP. There's also the institutional privilege that might be involved, which assumes that Parliament is going to act as a collective body to do this or that.
The question was raised by a member who perceived that this in fact was a contempt. He raised it as a question of privilege. The Speaker said, based on the precedents that he had seen before, he agreed that this appeared on its face to be a question of privilege that somehow or other raises questions about the authority and dignity of Parliament and its capacity to work and the assumptions about how it will work.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
That certainly appears why—
Go ahead, sorry.
12:50 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
Just to finish, the House agreed, and that's why the question is now before this committee, because the reference was given to it by a vote of the House to pass it on to this committee for review.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
But that could be construed as a wide scope of things, couldn't it?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Is that just by a mere vote in the House to judge whether it has been in contempt of Parliament, that some outside body, in this case the executive, has been contemptuous of Parliament's function?
12:50 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
The decision really is for this committee to make an assessment of the case, to determine whether it was severe. I guess it's the Goldilocks approach: Was it severe, was it too little or was it just right? You have to make a determination about that and then, to actually close the circle, the House would have to adopt the report. Then you have actually made a full case of the issue of privilege, and the House has said, yes, it doesn't want to see this happen again.
I think the members of the government departments will be sensitive to the very idea that this was even exposed and raised to this level. So one would agree with the Treasury Board Secretariat that, as cases arise, members of the various departments who deal with communications respecting legislation before Parliament will become more sensitive and will avoid these kinds of careless errors, because one assumes that none of this is intentional.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I feel that there is probably more emphasis to be put on this toward the citizens of this country who rely on that information and who feel that it's coming. I think it's more an egregious insult to them than it is to us. I know that's a whole other issue right there. That's why I'm trying to figure out whether this is more of an administrative penalty to be laid upon the department, as opposed to a breach of my particular privilege. I carried on as usual. I voted on the bill, debated on the bill—
12:50 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
Again, I think the perspective with respect to it is more about the institution as opposed to individual members and their rights and their ability to function.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you very much for that.
I want to return also to the department. I promise this won't be a similar academic exercise, for that matter, or it might. I don't know.
I want to go back to the communications aspect of it and I want to pick up on the comments about the department. In your case do you provide information to newer people coming into public service about the process of legislation, how it works? I know that seems kind of.... I didn't really get that training, and I'm an MP. Do public servants get that type of training when they join the service?
12:50 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Strategic Communications and Ministerial Affairs, Treasury Board Secretariat
I certainly don't do that on behalf of government. Within my own department, with my own communications staff, as I said—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Strategic Communications and Ministerial Affairs, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes...in my department.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
What do the other departments do? Do you have that authority to say, maybe....
12:50 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Strategic Communications and Ministerial Affairs, Treasury Board Secretariat
I don't have that authority. I'm responsible for the communications policy. I think some of the legislative stuff would be handled elsewhere.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I just bring that up because maybe—to my committee members—we should think about discussing the legislative process as well. It would be ironic, though, that we teach people in the public service about legislative process and we tell nothing to brand-new members of Parliament who are elected. Nevertheless, that's a whole other issue.
Thank you for your time, everyone, and thanks for your patience.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to follow up on Mr. Simms's comments, I know when I joined the Treasury Board Secretariat back in 2008 as a public servant, we did have a one-day session at the old city hall here in Ottawa on a general, “how government works” type of thing.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I don't disagree. I don't know if that program still exists. It's been 10 years since I was there. Coming from a political science background it was a bit of a refresher, but it was nonetheless enjoyable.
Thank you to our friends and witnesses today.
Mr. Robert, when Minister Goodale appeared before the committee he suggested that the committee might want to consider some wording, some phraseology, some types of suggestions and tips and helpful hints for the department as to what language they ought to use when communicating information that is still before Parliament, that Parliament hasn't yet dealt with.
I'm not a fan of reinventing the wheel. I don't like doing extra work when a lot of this documentation would already exist, and I think, 30-plus years of Speakers' rulings on matters similar to this. Would it be within your purview and your thoughts on whether or not there could be a document—maybe from table research branch—consolidating that information from the past 30 years as to what the Speakers of the past and today have said on this matter?
12:55 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
We could probably compile that. I don't think that would be too difficult.
A kind of solution that might be helpful is if the communications presented a chronology of the legislation—if they said, as of whatever date their communication has been released, that “Bill C-76 is at second reading in the House of Commons”, or “is before a committee”. If you are required to put in some kind of chronological context then you would be absolutely sure that the bill hasn't yet passed. That might be a helpful way to anchor the communiqué that the departments or agencies may wish to convey with a clear understanding that, yes, it's still before Parliament, nothing has happened, nothing is finalized, and the members have full scope to review the bill, change it, reject it, whatever they might decide to do.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Would you be willing to jot down in recommendation form that idea you just suggested and provide it to our committee?
