I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 5 by the member for Saint-Jean regarding the lack of technical briefings for members provided by government officials.
In raising her question of privilege, the member alleged that the government committed a contempt of the House by providing a media-only, closed-door technical briefing on the west coast oil pipeline, now known as “Pacific Link”, before the project was announced. She stated that members did not have access to a similar briefing, despite having requested one. As a result, she said, members were prevented from obtaining privileged information about a project of national interest to which the media were given access.
The member noted that the Chair has repeatedly ruled that providing legislative information to the media, but not to members, before that information is presented to the House is a matter of privilege. She argued that this principle of primacy should also apply to programs and policies on which the opposition parties may need to take a position.
In response, the deputy government House leader pointed out the importance of distinguishing briefings on legislative measures from those on policies. In her view, since the government's briefing was an update on a public policy, not a legislative measure to be introduced in the House, the government was within its rights to provide information to the media. She concluded by citing a decision by Speaker Parent from April 11, 1997, in which he stated that the Chair has no control over these events.
As both these members said, members must be first to know about the contents of legislative measures. Briefings provided to the media before members have, in the past, given rise to questions of privilege on the premature disclosure of bills, and these have been ruled prima facie cases of privilege. These contempts were based on the convention that members must be the first to be informed of the substance of legislative measures, as described in section 3.14 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition. The member for Saint-Jean seemed to suggest that this convention now be extended to announcements of government proposals.
The issue here is therefore to determine whether providing information about a public policy or program to an external audience, in private or in public, before members are so informed is a contempt.
Past decisions of the Chair show that for a contempt to exist, it must be demonstrated that a proceeding in the House or the ability of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties was affected.
One of my predecessors made this same point in a ruling delivered on March 3, 2014, at pages 3429 and 3430 of the Debates:
When a situation is brought to the Chair's attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents....[T]he Chair must assess whether the member has been obstructed in the discharge of [their] responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament....[A] member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings.
Therefore, while the Chair agrees that members should have timely access to accurate information and, like a number of previous Chairs, finds it disappointing that the government gives the media priority over members, the Chair cannot conclude in this case that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank members for their attention.