I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 17, 2024, by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes on the alleged failure of a witness to provide information to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
In his intervention, the member referred to events described in the 12th report of the committee, presented to the House earlier that day. The report alleged that a witness, Mr. Stephen Anderson, failed to answer questions and refused to produce specific documents ordered by the committee following the adoption of two distinct motions. Specifically, Mr. Anderson repeatedly refused to provide the name of an individual he had referred to in his testimony.
The member made reference to a question of privilege he raised on March 20, 2024, concerning the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and the subsequent finding of a prima facie case of privilege, noting its similarities with the current situation. He added that this incident goes further. In addition to failing to respond to questions, Mr. Anderson also disregarded orders of the committee for the production of documents. The member argued the current situation also constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.
In reviewing this matter, the Chair took into consideration the arguments made by the member for Hamilton Centre, who supported the assertions made by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
The Chair also considered carefully the committee's report. After presenting the sequence of events and describing the attempts made to receive the requested information, it concludes with, and I quote, “having not received the documents requested from the witness, and, most significantly, the name referenced during the committee meeting of Wednesday, July 17, 2024, continuing to be withheld, [the] committee feels it is their duty to place these matters before the House at this time so that the House may take such measures as it deems appropriate.”
The Chair notes that two privileges enjoyed by committees have allegedly been breached. These are rights fundamental to the proper functioning of Parliament.
With regard to answering questions put by members of a committee, it is worth reiterating that witnesses are obliged to provide answers to questions from the committee. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1081, “refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not.”
In terms of ordering the productions of documents, Standing Order 108(1)(a) delegates this power from the House to its committees. Indeed, as Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling from March 9, 2011, at page 8841 of the Debates, and I quote, “the power of committees of the House to order papers is indistinguishable from that of the House.”
In light of the above and given the importance of protecting the powers accorded to the House to fulfill its duties, the Chair finds the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.
Accordingly, I would now invite the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to move his motion.