Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, I have prepared remarks. We were both prepared to answer your questions, but we will obviously put that off to another time.
We're pleased to be here to follow up on the question of privilege that was referred to the committee on April 19, 2016.
Questions of privilege are important opportunities for the House to debate and define both individual and collective privileges and, if the case warrants, to consider how a specific breach of privilege may be avoided in future. In order to fully understand the role that the committee plays in this process, it may be helpful to review the procedures governing questions of privilege and, particularly, the difference between the role of the Speaker and role of the House and its committees in this regard.
As Speaker Regan clearly stated in his ruling of April 19, the role of the Speaker in relation to questions of privilege is a very defined and limited one.
The citation from page 141 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, cited by the Speaker in his ruling bears repeating:
Great importance is attached to matters involving privilege. A Member wishing to raise a question of privilege in the House must first convince the Speaker that his or her concern is prima facie (on the first impression or at first glance) a question of privilege. The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion, which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker's opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.
In short, the role of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether, at first glance, the matter complained of merits priority treatment. It is then up to the House itself to decide on the matter. In most instances where the Speaker finds a prima facie case of privilege, the resulting motion debated in the House directs the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider the matter, where a more detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the breach can be considered.
In many ways, a study on a question of privilege is analogous to any other study conducted by the committee. The Standing Orders permit the committee to send for the necessary persons, papers, and records, and, as “master of its own agenda”, the committee is free to organize its study as it wishes. The committee may choose to dedicate one or several meetings to the consideration of the matter, and may, but is not required to, report back to the House with its findings or recommendations.
On previous occasions where this standing committee has undertaken a study on a question of privilege, the committee has often invited the member who raised the question of privilege to appear as a witness. If other members are directly implicated or affected by a question of privilege, they are often also invited to appear to describe the effect of the breach on their work. When departments or ministries of the government may have relevant information to provide, the appropriate minister has appeared before the committee, accompanied by senior departmental officials.
In 2001, a similar question of privilege was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by the House after the Speaker ruled that the disclosure of details about a bill to the media before its introduction in the House constituted a prima facie question of privilege.
In conducting its study, the committee heard from the member who initially raised the question and ultimately moved the motion. The Minister of Justice, as well as senior officials from the Privy Council Office, also appeared.
In response to a previous question of privilege that same year on a similar topic, the government had already initiated an administrative review by a private company regarding the disclosure. Therefore, to aid in its study, the committee exercised its right to request documents and receive a copy of the report.
As a result, in terms of process, a summary of the committee's hearings, or any other documents or reports examined in the course of its study, then becomes the basis for a report should the committee wish to prepare one. The report may then be presented to the House, and a motion for concurrence in the report may eventually be moved, debated, and ultimately subject to a decision by the House. In the past, reports on questions of privilege have usually included the context surrounding the question of privilege and any concrete recommendations that the committee feels are helpful.
The committee may, but is not required to, recommend specific sanctions against a particular member of the House, a member of the public, or any other agency or group. As an example, the 40th report of the committee prepared in 2001, in relation to the case I described earlier, summarized its findings but did not recommend any sanctions. Ultimately, the committee concluded that it could not find that a contempt of the House had been committed or that the privileges of the House and its members had been breached.
If the House of Commons then proceeds to concur in the committee's report, either by unanimous consent or following the normal rules of debate for such matters, its contents are formally adopted by the House, and, where the recommendations or sanctions are specific, they become formal orders of the House requiring action or response.
As the committee considers how it would like to approach its study of this question of privilege, the House administration remains ready to provide the committee with the process support it requires.
We look forward to answering any questions you may have next time.
Thank you.
