Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the refusal of my request for Adjournment Proceedings, or a late show, concerning my question pursuant to Standing Order 37(2) to a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy during the May 16 question period.
On the afternoon of May 16, I followed the provisions of Standing Order 37(3), which states, “A member who is not satisfied with the response to a question asked on any day at this stage,...may give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein...must be given in writing to the Speaker not later than one hour following that period the same day.”
The following morning, I received the following message from the Private Members' Business Office: “We are not able to accept your notice for an adjournment debate because Standing Order 38 indicates that only a minister or parliamentary secretary may answer questions during the Adjournment Proceedings.”
While the office was correct in acknowledging that this is what Standing Order 38 says, it overlooked the House's order of October 2, 2001, recorded at page 677 of Journals, which stated:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That notwithstanding any Standing Order, a question to a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy may be raised during the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 and a spokesperson for the Board who is not a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary may give the response during those proceedings.
I pointed this order out in a reply email. The answer I received from the Private Members' Business Office was as follows, “Should you obtain unanimous consent, as was obtained on October 2, 2001, we would then accept the notice provided yesterday.”
I had filed my late show notice because I had hoped perhaps there might be more information, which the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, could not have shared in the 35 seconds he had to answer me during question period. Additionally, given that it might be September or October before the late show gets scheduled, perhaps there might even be an update on the file, which then could be shared with this House.
It is my concern that my privileges in being able to raise this matter further are being frustrated, perhaps by a misapprehension of the nature of the order adopted by this House on October 2, 2001. Footnote 127 on page 517 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, describes the provenance of this order:
In 2001, Mauril Bélanger...raised a question of privilege to object that, while oral questions could be put to a representative of the Board of Internal Economy, the Member, if dissatisfied with the reply, could not then discuss the matter further during the Adjournment Proceedings since only Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries could reply to questions during such proceedings. The House later adopted a motion, by unanimous consent, to provide that the spokesperson for the Board, who was not a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, respond during the Adjournment Proceedings.
Here we are with yet another question of privilege on the right to have a late show concerning an inquiry about the House of Commons administration. In my view, the House's 2001 order was of a permanent standing nature. Paragraph 20.96 of Erskine May, 25th edition, explains the following:
Orders of a permanent character which ‘stand’ in force from one session to another and (unless indicated otherwise) from one Parliament to another, codify and direct many of the procedures and practices of the House and are known as standing orders. Standing orders may be amended or repealed, or new standing orders introduced, by motion and decision in the House in the normal way; there are no set rules on how such a motion may arise.
Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to page 16 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, fourth edition, which adds:
Some orders of the House have a shorter or longer life than a session. For example, an order of the House may give committees a longer time to report on particular Estimates or annual reviews than is permitted under the Standing Orders. Such an order is spent when the business to which it relates has been dealt with. On the other hand, some orders, although not made into Standing Orders, may come to be regarded as having virtually permanent operation. One such order was passed in 1962 adopting a form of words for the prayer with which the House begins each sitting.
Of course, the wording of our own daily prayer, a matter of recent discussion, traces its approval to a decision of the House found at pages 172 and 174 of the Journals for February 18, 1994. The wording of the prayer has not been approved in every subsequent session, but rather, the 1994 order has proven to be of sufficient authority.
For an example of another House order of a similar enduring nature that was adopted by this House without ever having been catalogued among the numbered and bound Standing Orders, I refer the Chair to pages 72 and 73 of the Journals for November 19, 1984:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered,—That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs shall have permanently referred to it all annual reports made to Parliament pursuant to section 72 of the Privacy Act and section 72 of the Access to Information Act; and
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to:
1. consider every report prepared under section 72 of the Access to Information Act and of the Privacy Act;
On the strength of that House order, all annual reports from departments and agencies under the access to information and privacy laws were referred to the justice committee for over 30 years, until just a few years ago, despite the fact that the House created, in 2004, a special committee dedicated to, among other things, access to information and privacy issues.
Only in 2015 was this 1984 House order superseded, after the House adopted an amendment to Standing Order 108(3)(h) concerning the mandate of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to specify that the committee would receive access to information and privacy annual reports.
In my respectful view, the House's order of October 2, 2001, is of a similar nature and remains in effect today. A plain reading of that order suggests that it was neutrally worded with regard to time in stating, “a question... may be raised... and a spokesperson... may give the response".
Nowhere in the order does it say it is limited to Mr. Bélanger's question or that its application was limited to a single question. Looking beyond the actual wording of the October 2, 2001, order, I would invite the Chair to consider also the motivations which led to its adoption.
In response to Mr. Bélanger's question of privilege, which I described earlier, the then-government House leader, the Hon. Don Boudria said, at page 5722 of the Debates on September 28, 2001:
This is most unfortunate, and creates an injustice. I agree with the hon. member on that. If, in the near future, the clerks could prepare for us the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders, I would be agreeable to discussing it with the other House leaders, with a view to amending the Standing Orders and making things equitable. It seems to me that is the solution.
The following week, when the motion for the October 2, 2001, House order was presented, the then-parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, Geoff Regan, said at page 5883 of the Debates:
Following other discussions among the House leaders I believe you would find, if you were to seek it, unanimous consent for the following motion.
If one were to follow the thread between these events, I think it is patently clear that the order of October 2, 2001, was meant to address, permanently, the gap in the published Standing Orders, which allowed questions to be posed to spokespersons for the Board of Internal Economy but not a late show follow-up or, in other words, in the words of Mr. Boudria, to make an equitable cure to this injustice.
Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that my notice seeking to raise the matter during adjournment proceedings should have been treated as receivable and therefore received by the House administration. Further, the House administration's refusal to accept my late show notice respecting my question about the allegations of Liberal partisanship on the part of the Clerk of the House constitutes a breach of privilege.
I do not make this point lightly. Put simply, pages 81 to 83 of Bosc and Gagnon confirm that “an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands” and “acting in breach of any orders of the House” constitute contempt of Parliament.
Should you agree, in addition to permitting my notice to be received by the table, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for their consideration.
