Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Abbotsford on February 26, 2018, with respect to the briefings that were provided for Bill C-69. I contend that in fact no breach of privilege has been committed.
The crux of my hon. colleague's argument is that the minister “impeded every single member of this House”, and that someone “tried to withhold information from the House”.
Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the decision given by your predecessor on March 3, 2014, regarding a technical briefing from the minister of state for democratic institutions. In that case, the Speaker ruled with relation to the technical briefing, where deficient interpretation was considered by a member as “preventing parliamentarians from participating fully in subsequent debate on the bill”. The member went on to note that the protection of the official languages in the House is fundamental to ensuring equality among all members.
In his decision, the Speaker at the time referenced two rulings. The first, by Speaker Bosley on May 15, 1985, can be found at page 4769 of Debates, and states:
I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.
The second ruling, delivered February 7, 2013, which can be found on page 13869 of Debates, states:
It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in government processes, no matter how frustrating they may appear to be to the member.
I believe there are similarities with regard to departmental matters and these rulings are pertinent. I will also note that the bill was not debated in the House until the following Wednesday, after its introduction, which means the member for Abbotsford had plenty of time to prepare his intervention for second reading debate.
While the member may feel that he was disadvantaged in some way, I do not agree with his assertion that the minister or her staff intentionally tried to impede his ability to carry out his duties. If the member feels that he needs additional briefings, I can assure him that they will be provided, as has been the practice of our government.
The member for Abbotsford was right in acknowledging that his intervention “does not fall strictly within one of the specifically defined privileges or confines of a proceeding in the House of Commons”.
This is not a legitimate question of privilege. It is a well-established convention that the Chair's role is confined to proceedings before the House and of Parliament. Although I appreciate my hon. colleague's devotion to the respect of parliamentary privilege, I will reiterate that the situation at hand does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.