Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You're saying “this” meaning the clause, not the amendment?

[Heather Sheehy]

That's correct. The clause is consistent with a committee of parliamentarians, as opposed to a committee of Parliament. As Ms. Miles has pointed out, it would allow for parliamentary privilege not applying in the same way to matters before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or comments with respect to the amendment?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, just so I'm clear, did Ms. Sheehy say a committee of parliamentarians and a committee of Parliament?

[Heather Sheehy]

This committee is a committee of parliamentarians, as distinct from a committee of Parliament. The subclause that limits parliamentary privilege is consistent with a committee of parliamentarians, as distinct from a committee of Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any other committee of parliamentarians in Canada?

[Heather Sheehy]

No.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Do we know whether in the U.K. Parliament or the House of Representatives in the United States there are similar provisions?

[Heather Sheehy]

I don't know offhand; I'm sorry. Let me just see whether I have that information before me.

[Nancy Miles]

I want to add that it's not unprecedented for Parliament to determine some circumscription of their parliamentary privilege. The Parliamentary Protective Service legislation that was recently passed was another example of something whereby, from a parliamentary privilege standpoint, the Speakers would have been vested with that exclusive power, and it would have been one of their parliamentary privileges. They ceded some of that power to put together the parliamentary precinct service. This, then, is not atypical of an ability to circumscribe parliamentary privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Damoff is next, then Mr. Miller, and then Mr. Di lorio .

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Given the type of information that this committee is going to be receiving and the security clearance they will have, is it not critical that they be bound to secrecy?

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes. In fact, that's the intention. Given the highly sensitive information that the committee will be receiving, it's necessary to circumscribe parliamentary privilege. They've done it in a contained way, and that's outlined in the clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Just before we go on, the analyst has shown us that in New Zealand, parliamentary privilege is expressly preserved. It is not in the other models that we have.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

That's to say the Australian or the U.K. situations are consistent with proposed section 12?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm not sure it is implicitly or explicitly even referred to in those situations. It's not expressly provided in the U.K., but it is preserved because it's not mentioned not to have been provided.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I didn't pick this up earlier, but colleagues, I would put it to you that to abridge our fellow members' parliamentary privilege is not something we just do on a whim. I know that many of you are new to this place, but it doesn't sit right with me that we, as members of this committee, are going to automatically say, “Your rights as a parliamentarian are abridged by virtue of this bill.” I wish we had better precedents for this.

I understand what the drafters are trying to do. I understand that, but you're coming right up against centuries of rights for parliamentarians to do our job, and it's not sitting well with me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Mr. Miller, then Mr. Di Iorio, and then Ms. Damoff.

I would just like to ask whether the drafters were aware that New Zealand had expressly preserved privilege, and this bill took it out?

[Heather Sheehy]

In Australia, there's an express override of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, to support disclosure restrictions and offence provisions for members, so there are other international examples, and we are aware of the international comparisons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you.

When I put my hand up to get on the speakers list, I didn't realize the situation in New Zealand. I was going to suggest that we suspend or defer the debate on this clause until maybe after the vote, to give the clerk or somebody time to find that out.

I'm not going to ask for that now. Hearing that there is at least one country that upholds the protection of parliamentary privilege has made up my mind on how I'm going to vote.

I would further comment, Mr. Chair, that through this bill and other avenues, if the drafters or the government is worried about confidentiality and what have you, I think there are enough tools in place, if I can use the word “tools”, that this will happen regardless. I intend to support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Di Iorio has attempted to raise this issue many times in our debate, so he will now shed some light on this for us.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I must say that I am well aware of the remarks that the Honourable Tony Clement made. We must use tremendous caution in addressing the issue of this privilege, which is called parliamentary immunity, a privilege many centuries old that goes back a long way in British parliamentary history. If this exception is made, I think it should be done in the most restrictive way possible.

This is what I suggest by way of solution.

I understand from subclause 12(2) that the restriction or exception to parliamentary immunity applies essentially and only to the situation where a member of the committee of parliamentarians would rise in the House and disclose government secrets. That is the only place where it would apply.

obviously, if we want to prove it, we have to be able to extract the statement made in the House, with supporting evidence. It's recorded on television, it's written down, so there are other forms of testimony or evidence. It is only from this perspective that a restriction is placed on parliamentary privilege.

For the rest, all other privileges of parliamentarians are not affected by this bill, because constitutional principles are involved.

I say this, but I don't even know if the exception I provided earlier is allowed in Canadian constitutional law.

So while I'm voting in favour of this provision, I understand that it is an extremely limited restriction that serves only to put into evidence the disclosure that a committee member would make to the House or the Senate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff—Sorry. Please continue, Mr. Di Iorio.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

There are also disclosures that could be made in committee because the public can be present when the committee is sitting. It is not necessarily in camera. So if the parliamentarian discloses government secrets to the public, the disclosure made must be admitted as evidence.