Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay.

In terms of having any kind of use as a precedent, we've set out two precedents, and I don't know if they were cited because they are reports that had actually subsequently been concurred in or if in fact a concurrence vote took place...?

[Andre Barnes]

There were other similar incidents where the Speaker had found...it was to do with bills that were on notice and the information about them had been divulged, but they were not sent to the committee.

There was one instance fairly recently. The member from St. Paul's had posted some information about a private member's bill and had unreservedly apologized for doing so. The Speaker ruled that it was a case of privilege but that no further action needed to be taken because an apology was given to the House.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Right.

I had a question, Andre, relating to the examples you cited from 2001. We keep throwing more and more work at you, so for that reason I want to be cautious in what I'm about to say.

Would it make sense to look at other parliaments in other provinces or other places such as Westminster for similar types of precedents that have occurred since that time? The reason I ask is that we would not, in our most relevant precedents from here, have any references to those subsequent rulings that might relate to circumstances that are similar. Of course, media dynamics have changed a lot since 2001; hence, I can imagine the source of these problems being something that is novel, that might not have existed technologically in 2001. I'm not sure that's the case—we don't know yet—but it's certainly conceivable.

I don't want to impose this work on you, but I'll just leave the thought in your head that it might be relevant.

[Andre Barnes]

I think that in these cases of privilege, it is a very good idea to check out other jurisdictions. I can think of another case of privilege, which I don't need to bring up, where it was very informative to look at the House of Commons in Australia and the U.K. They had gone through a case that was even more similar to the one we found as compared with the Canadian precedent, so I'll look into it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead.

[The Clerk]

I have just a small precision about concurrence. Yes, very often committee reports are concurred in by unanimous consent on the same day they have been presented, but there is also the other channel of putting a concurrence motion on the order paper.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

You didn't imply this, but I'm going to now suggest an implication. If we can achieve a report on which there is unanimous consent, we are likely to be able to achieve that secondary objective of having unanimous consent in the House as opposed to disagreeing with each other. That would seem to make sense.

Actually, that wasn't a question to you; that was what strikes me as an observation. I was looking for comment only in the event I were to say something outrageously wrong, in which case you could correct me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The interesting thing is that in this Parliament on the unanimous consent, we have the Bloc and the Green Party who don't always co-operate.

Are there other questions, comments, or directions on how to proceed?

Mr. Julian, welcome to the committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you for your welcome.

I am here for only another 20 minutes, unfortunately. Don Davies will be replacing me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

So you're just going to talk for 20 minutes?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

No, no, I won't do a filibuster today.

I am intrigued by the background we've been given by the analyst and the clerk. It seems to me this is a very serious breach, and it should be taken seriously and treated seriously. I'm sure all members of the committee feel the same way.

The structure of some of the previous considerations of this type of premature disclosure is something I find important. When we talk about the minister, the department being involved, the Clerk of the House, and the PCO, I think these are all important witnesses we should consider, and we should have that discussion around this table.

The fact that there have been investigations in the past as well is something we should take very seriously. I don't believe we know at this point whether the department undertook an investigation or whether we've identified the person who leaked the information to journalists. That certainly hasn't come out so far. If an investigation has been launched, it would, I think, be germane for us to know about it.

We should be looking to see what the follow-up has been at the departmental level. That will then help to shape the recommendations we bring forward. I'd like to put on the table that the types of past discussions this committee has engaged in around similar types of violations of parliamentary privilege should be the model we use this time around in approaching this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Chan and then Mr. Richards.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I want to thank my colleagues on the other side for their interventions.

The reason I suggested at the last committee meeting that we bring the law clerk in—and I thank the analyst for his report to give us some background—is that I wanted to delve a bit more carefully, notwithstanding the finding by the Speaker of a prima facie case of a breach of members' privilege.

I'm not yet convinced that we in fact do have a breach of members' privilege. I've tried to look at The Globe and Mail article carefully, and I don't necessarily see evidence—at least in the article—that the reporter in question actually had a copy of the bill, which would be a breach of our privileges. Maybe someone did do something, and brief somebody out of turn in terms of the content of the bill, but it mostly talks about things that are not found in the bill as opposed to what was actually in the bill.

I go back, for example, to the reference in the paper by the analyst, looking at similar questions of privileges referred to committee, specifically about the example he cited from the member from Provencher from March of.... Sorry, I have the wrong one. I mean the Speaker's ruling of 2010 dealing with the member from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre about the premature disclosure of a private member's bill, where that had been disclosed on the member's website, which was then, of course, determined to be a breach of members' privileges.

I wanted to probe that a little bit more. Let's say I'm bringing in something under the Criminal Code dealing with the current private member's bill that's dealing with impaired driving. I say that I'm bringing in a private member's bill on the Criminal Code, but I'm not dealing with murder and I'm not dealing with consecutive sentencing. Would that be a breach of members' privileges when I don't disclose the actual contents of the bill that is before the House?

That's really my point here. In fact, was there actual significant...? Was the person actually reporting details of the substantive matters that were actually in Bill C-14 when it was introduced into the House on April 14?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

I think when we're looking at questions such as this, the information we've been given is very helpful. Obviously, because of the precedent in the two cases we've seen previously, in 2001 it looked as if there was a very similar path that was followed in looking into it. I suggest that we really should use that as a helpful guide.

I would suggest that we would obviously want to bring in some witnesses who would be similar in nature to those we saw at that time. I think the clerk would be a good starting point to give us some background, as well, but I also think that obviously the member who raised—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you mean the law clerk?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

The law clerk would be helpful as well. I believe the Clerk of the House might be helpful as well as the law clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

So the Clerk of the House.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I also think it would be helpful to have the member who obviously raised the question of privilege. The minister should be called to appear, as well as department officials and the Privy Council Office. Those would all be good witnesses for us to have. The precedent is there from the other cases.

I also believe that, when we're talking about privilege, it should really be given first priority. We should begin with this at our next meeting and make this our highest priority. In the past it looks as if it's taken four or five meetings. I think we would probably want to devote a similar amount of time to it.

That is my suggestion, that we take that precedent we have from the other two cases we've looked at here as a guide, and those would be some of the witnesses I would suggest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are there any other comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I should mention, Mr. Chair, that I really admire your tie. I don't know why. I just find it very, very appealing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I thought you would.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I don't disagree with Mr. Richards, but at the same time, I know there are some other important—