Geoff Regan

[Privilege, June 4th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 25, 2018, by the member for Elmwood—Transcona concerning the rights of members.

In raising his question of privilege, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona alleged that in terminating his arguments related to his point of order on the procedural propriety of vote 40 under Treasury Board in the main estimates, the Chair breached his privileges by casting aspersions on his motives for raising the point of order. The member assured the House that in raising the point of order, he was not prompted by any ulterior motive. He asked that the actions taken by the Chair be found to be a prima facie breach of privilege that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs might examine the issue.

It is well established that when making a case on either questions of privilege or points of order, members are expected to make brief presentations on the issue being raised. The Chair, once satisfied that sufficient information has been given, may inform the member accordingly. The Chair may then rule immediately or take the matter under advisement.

As I indicated when the point of order was first raised, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 638, “Under the Standing Orders, a brief presentation of arguments on the point of order is possible at the Speaker’s discretion.”

Acting Speaker Devolin explained this well on June 13, 2012, at page 9374 of the Debates, when he stated, “...the floor is not the members' until they choose to stop. The Speaker has a right to terminate that discussion...That is left to the judgment of the Speaker.” This is to say that members do not have unlimited time to speak.

Additionally, once the Speaker has ruled or determined that sufficient information has been presented, it is not in keeping with our practices that members use new points of order, for it can be perceived as undermining and questioning the authority of the Chair.

In the present case, the charge that the member for Elmwood—Transcona brought forward as a question of privilege cannot be seen as anything other than a challenge to this authority. Bosc and Gagnon at page 641 is clear:

A Member may not rise on a point of order to discuss a matter which the Speaker has already ruled was not a question of privilege or to raise a matter as a question of privilege after the Speaker has ruled that it was not a point of order.

To be clear, our procedural practices and traditions prohibit the use of questions of privilege or points of order in this fashion precisely so that the authority of the Chair is not casually or repeatedly challenged.

I also want to take a moment to address the events of May 25 more generally. The proceedings that day were disorderly to a degree rarely seen. As the speaker, I am called upon to be the guardian of the rights and privileges of all members and of the House; with this comes a responsibility to preserve order and decorum. Standing Order 10 clearly sets this out: “The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or other authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.”

In conjunction with this, it is important to remember, as my predecessor explained, at page 15799 of the Debates, on April 23, 2013, that:

...members elect a Speaker from among the membership to apply rules they themselves have devised and can amend. Thus, it is only with the active participation of the members themselves that the Speaker, who requires the support and goodwill of the House in order to carry out the duties of the office, can apply the rules.

Thus, the Speaker's authority can be effectively exercised only with the full support of all member of this House. It is in the interest of the House as an institution that members behave in a way that ensures that its deliberations are carried out properly and respectfully. It is incumbent on all of us to protect the reputation of the House of Commons and to conduct ourselves in such a way that we do not diminish it in the eyes of our fellow citizens.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs also undertook a study on order and decorum back in 2007. Conclusions stemming from the committee's 37th report should guide all of us in this place, as it stated:

The Speaker’s authority can only be exercised if he or she has the support and guidance of all parties and each Member of the House. The recognized parties in the House undertake to assist the Speaker in this regard, and not to undermine his decisions. It is incumbent upon all of us, as Members of the House, to support the Speaker in this regard. We strongly believe that it is in the interests of the House as an institution with a long and important history, and as the elected representatives of the people of Canada, that the Speaker and all Members do what is necessary to ensure that the House is viewed as a place worthy of respect and admiration.

As Speaker, I have found that what is necessary to do is not always easy, predictable, or straightforward. In other words, it is not an exact science. In fact, it is an imperfect one. The Chair understands this is equally true of what members must face, given the context in which we work. Decisions and responses of the Chair must be firmly guided by what the House has authorized as its rules and practices and, more important, what it feels is in the House's best interest in the short and long term. At the same time, these decisions are often borne in response to immediate, new, and evolving situations.

In marrying these two realities, the Chair endeavours at all times to guide the House through its deliberations in a fair manner, one that respects members individually and collectively. While the different roles and different responsibilities of members and the Chair may seem at times hard to balance, I, as Speaker and as an elected representative, firmly believe that together we are still working in pursuit of this shared objective as described in the 2017 report of the procedure and House affairs committee.

As your Speaker, I am your servant, and I preside over the proceedings based upon the rules that you have given me. We are used to robust and heated debate. I have every confidence that while in this case there is no prima facie question of privilege, we have found a productive and respective way to continue our important work.

I thank all honourable members for their attention.

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 25, 2018 by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona regarding the form of the main estimates 2018-19.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona was concerned with vote 40 under Treasury Board Secretariat, also referred to as the budget implementation vote. That vote, in the amount of $7.04 billion, gives Treasury Board the authority to supplement other appropriations in support of initiatives announced in the budget of February 27, 2018.

The hon. member contended that this vote was not in the proper form, in that it failed to provide sufficient information regarding the government’s spending plans. He pointed out that many of the initiatives which vote 40 might fund are not addressed in the various departmental plans, which are considered part III of the estimates. He also felt that it was improper that the breakdown of the proposed spending is referenced in an annex to the budget documents rather than in the estimates themselves.

The hon. opposition House leader, who supported the point of order raised by the member for Elmwood—Transcona, argued that, when the Standing Orders were amended to delay the tabling of the main estimates, it was with the expectation of receiving more complete and accurate information. She did not feel that was the case with vote 40 and feared that its wording would allow the government to allocate funds without sufficient scrutiny by Parliament.

When the matter was raised, I expressed concern about whether the timing of the point of order was appropriate. I recognize that questions relating to the estimates are occasionally complex, and that my predecessors have sometimes agreed to hear arguments early to allow sufficient time to properly consider them. While the estimates are still before committee at this time, I am prepared to rule on the point of order now.

When the government presents estimates to the House, each vote contains an amount of money and a destination, which describes the purpose for which the money will be used. In some cases, the description is quite detailed and in other cases it can be rather general. That said, the estimates are referred to committee specifically to allow members to study them in further detail, which can involve calling witnesses or asking for further information regarding the government’s plans. While committees have no power to change the destination of the spending, as this would violate the crown’s right to initiate spending requests, they do have the power to reduce or even reject the amount of a vote if they are not satisfied with the information provided.

The authority of the Speaker to intervene as sought by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is more limited than he might wish or believe. In fact, when past Speakers have found procedural irregularities with items in the estimates, these have generally been cases where the funds requested depended on an authority that required supporting legislation.

In the present case, the hon. member is asking the Speaker to rule vote 40 out of order on the basis that it does not contain sufficient information about the proposed spending. This is not so much a procedural issue on which the Speaker can rule, but rather a policy disagreement with the government over the way it has chosen to request these funds.

The member's objection to vote 40 seems to mainly be that it is a central fund granted to Treasury Board, which has the authority to then allocate monies to various other departments.

I concede that the use of a budget implementation vote is unusual and I can understand why members may have preferred that these funds be requested in a different manner, under each of the specific departments, for example. That said, I cannot conclude that proceeding in the manner provided for in vote 40 is out of order. There are ample precedents of monies being granted to a central fund. The most well-known of these is vote 5 under Treasury Board for government contingencies.

Ultimately, the government determines the form its request for funds will take. While the government does have a responsibility to provide Parliament with sufficient information to allow it to make an informed decision, I do not believe it is for the Speaker to determine if the explanation of the particular request is sufficiently detailed or if the destination is the appropriate one. These are matters for members to consider when studying and voting on the estimates.

The Speaker’s role is limited to determining if the request for funds is in a form that does not require any separate legislative authorization, and if it respects the limits of the supply process. With that in mind, there are no grounds for the Chair to rule vote 40 out of order.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on two points of order raised yesterday by the hon. opposition House leader regarding government Motion No. 22. I would like to thank the hon. opposition House leader for having raised these matters, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

On the first matter, the hon. opposition House leader argued that, since in her view no debate had taken place on the motion on Friday, May 25, the Journals for that day were inaccurate as they state, and I quote, “debate arose thereon”. She asked that the Journals be revised accordingly.

As recognized by the opposition House leader herself, this is a point of order for which I have already ruled on last Friday. At that time, members questioned whether, due to issues with simultaneous interpretation and disorder in the chamber, the motion was properly before the House. I indicated that the motion was, in fact, properly before the House and that interpreters had successfully interpreted the reading of the motion into the record. I also indicated that the wording of the motion was available for examination in the Order Paper in both official languages. I have not changed my view on that question; consequently, the Journals accurately reflect the proceedings of last Friday.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following at page 564, with respect to what is considered debate:

A Member initiates the process of debate in the Chamber by moving (i.e., proposing) a motion.

It also adds at page 566:

If the motion is found to be in order, and has been moved and seconded, the Speaker proposes it to the House. Once the Speaker has read the motion in the words of its mover, it is considered to be before the House....

After a motion has been proposed to the House, the Speaker recognizes the mover as the first to speak in debate. If the mover chooses not to speak, he or she is nonetheless deemed to have spoken (by nodding, the Member is considered to have said “I move” and this is taken as the equivalent of speech in the debate).

I also refer members to a ruling by the Acting Speaker on March 19, 1992, which can be found at pages 8479 and 8480 of the Debates, which provides clarification as to whether a mover of a motion should be counted as forming part of the debate on a motion. The Acting Speaker said:

Since the minister presented the motion, even if he did not speak, according to the Standing Orders his speaking time is deemed to have expired.

He later said:

The first speaker was for the government and is deemed to have spoken, even if he did not actually do so. The government presented a motion to table [a] bill. So that was the first speaker....

These citations confirm that the motion, having been read out by the Chair and the mover having been recognized to speak to it, initiated debate on the item.

In a ruling by Speaker Fraser on April 3, 1990, that can be found at pages 10155 and 10156 of the Debates, on a point of order that questioned whether debate had properly begun on a bill, which in turn could invalidate a notice to curtail debate on a bill, he confirmed that, despite the mover not having the opportunity to rise to speak to the item, debate had started, and the matter was properly before the House:

It is true that the hon. member for Gloucester was not on his feet on debate, but I think I would be stretching things a very long way indeed if I should rule today that the House was not seized of the Order of the Day.

Similarly, it is clear to the Chair that, as I stated on Friday, government Motion No. 22 was properly before the House, and debate on it had commenced.

I would now like to address the second point of order raised by the hon. opposition House leader immediately following the point of order by the government House leader, whereby she gave notice of closure with respect to proceedings on government Motion No. 22.

In her arguments, the opposition House leader questioned the validity of the notice on the basis that, in her view, it had yet to be determined that debate on the motion had commenced. Essentially, she contended that until the Speaker had ruled on the first point of order, notice of closure could not be given.

In his intervention, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons reiterated that page 19702 of Hansard clearly indicated that debate had commenced, and therefore the notice of closure was appropriately given.

At that point, the chair occupant indicated that:

...until such time as the Speaker has given a ruling on this question of whether the debate has begun on Motion No. 22 or not, we will reserve whether the motion for closure on Motion No. 22 is in fact in order. It is not at the moment. We will wait until such time as a decision on the previous point of order earlier today is rendered, at which point, depending on that outcome, the government House leader may then proceed accordingly.

As I have just now confirmed that debate had indeed commenced, it follows that the notice of closure, as given by the government House leader yesterday, was indeed valid.

I thank all members for their attention in this matter.

[Canada's Olympic and Paralympic Athletes, May 9th, 2018]

On April 26, 2018, the following motion was adopted by the House of Commons:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following Question Period on Wednesday, May 9, 2018, the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to welcome the athletes of the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic and Paralympic Games; provided that: a) the Speaker be permitted to preside over Committee of the Whole from the Speaker's chair and make welcoming remarks on behalf of the House; b) the names of the athletes present be deemed read and printed in the House of Commons Debates for that day; c) only authorized photographers be permitted to take photos during proceedings of the Committee; and, d) when the proceedings of the Committee have concluded, the Committee shall rise.

Members are invited to join our guests at the reception immediately following in Room 237C. As many athletes are being recognized by us today, we will welcome them into the chamber in two waves. I therefore ask for members' patience, as I will take a moment each time to acknowledge the athletes and their accomplishments.

Now it is my pleasure to welcome onto the floor of the chamber many of the athletes who competed in the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang last February. These athletes have competed in alpine skiing, para-alpine skiing, biathlon, bobsleigh, cross-country skiing, curling, wheelchair curling, figure skating, and ski jumping.

Canadians from across the country are justly proud of them. Like them, we appreciate the years of training and sacrifice and determination it takes to become a world-class athlete.

We want to be athletes, but know nothing about it.

You are all champions and an inspiration to your fellow citizens. Through your efforts, Canada finished with the highest ever Canadian winter medal count.

We are all looking forward to seeing you shortly at the reception, so I now invite the athletes to make their way through the chamber to the reception room, where members will join them shortly so we may welcome the next group of Olympians and Paralympians.

[Privilege, May 7th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 17, 2018 by the hon. member for Niagara Falls concerning the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Niagara Falls for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for their submissions.

The member for Niagara Falls explained that an article by the CBC was published online eight minutes after Bill C-75 was introduced, suggesting that the only way this timeline was feasible was if the news organization was given advanced access to the contents of the bill.

Underscoring the importance of the House's right of first access to bills, the member contended that it is unacceptable that members have to “play catch-up” on a public debate on government legislation that is occurring between a well-briefed media and the Minister of Justice.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told the House that no advance disclosure of the bill had occurred and the government had complied with all the rules. As a result, he believed that members were not impeded in their functions, nor was there any offence against the authority of the House.

Let me begin by noting that in this case, the right of members to be informed first as to the content of bills which are on notice is not in question. Rather, what is at issue is whether this customary privilege has been properly observed.

On June 8, 2017, I explained that the right of first access has to be balanced with other considerations, such as the complex policy development process that accompanies the drafting of a piece of legislation. I stated at page 12334 of the Debates:

The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation.

This, then, must be measured against other evidence that is provided to the Chair; in other words, is there irrefutable evidence that specific legislative details about Bill C-75, beyond what could be considered as consultative information, were purposely and prematurely divulged to the media? Weighing the evidence provided in this case, as troubling as it is, it is difficult for the Chair to draw that conclusion, particularly since some details of the article in question could have come from the summary of the bill or from background information from discussions during the consultation process.

For that same reason, I can only agree with my predecessor when he noted on April 18, 2013, at page 15610 of the Debates, when referring to a question of privilege raised in relation to the premature disclosure of government legislation:

...it is a well-established practice that the contents of a bill are kept confidential until introduced in Parliament, thus making their premature disclosure a serious matter. However, in this case, a careful reading of the arguments presented to the Chair about what transpired reveals that the concerns expressed appear to be based more on conjecture and supposition than on actual evidence.

In addition, the parliamentary secretary assured the House that the government had not, in any way, divulged the contents of the bill nor its details before its introduction in the House. Therefore, although, as I said, this is very troubling, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this matter.

While the evidence presented may not be irrefutable in this instance, the Chair remains concerned that some members, of course, were left with the impression that they were put at a disadvantage in their ability to fulfill their duties.

When new ways, through technology or otherwise, are found to share information, it remains incumbent upon those who are responsible for legislative information to respect the primacy of Parliament by respecting the right of the House to first access. Members should never have to even so much as wonder if they were not the first to receive legislative information.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Points of Order, April 23rd, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for raising this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

The hon. member argued that Bill C-74 is an omnibus bill, as defined under Standing Order 69.1, as it amends more than 40 acts and contains several different initiatives. He is concerned, in particular, by a new act contained in the bill, namely the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. The hon. member acknowledged that this measure has been mentioned in the budget documents. However, he found it disproportionate that these few paragraphs, providing a brief overview of the government's intentions in relation to carbon pricing, represent 215 pages in the bill. He is of the view that this goes against the spirit of the Standing Order. For this reason, he feels the exemption provided for budget implementation bills by Standing Order 69.1(2) should not apply and that the measure should be voted on separately.

In his intervention, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader expressed his disagreement. He noted that page 151 of the budget document contains a section called “Pricing Carbon Pollution and Supporting Clean Growth”. In his view, this passage contained in the budget satisfies the requirement contained in Standing Order 69.1(2), thereby excluding Bill C-74 from the application of Standing Order 69.1(1).

The Speaker has the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on any motion for second and third reading of a bill in circumstances where the bill contains a number of unrelated provisions. The matter before us today concerns paragraph (2) of that Standing Order, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills. Standing Order 69.1(2) reads as follows:

The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The provisions identified by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby were indeed announced in the budget, as he himself acknowledged. The Chair has reviewed the relevant sections of the budget document cited by both the hon. member and the hon. parliamentary secretary, as well as the relevant portion of the bill. I believe there is a direct link between what was announced and what is contained in Bill C-74. I do not, however, believe it is for the Chair to determine if the proportions of a measure correspond sufficiently to the amount of the reference to it in the budget documents. If the measures are contained in the budget documents, the exemption of Standing Order 69.1(2) applies. Therefore, I do not believe it would be appropriate to have a separate vote on the provisions relating to the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act.

Finally, I would like to point out that Bill C-74 was introduced almost four weeks ago and debated on several days since then. As I mentioned in my ruling of November 7, 2017, for everyone's benefit I would encourage hon. members to raise their arguments as early as possible after a bill is introduced.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Privilege, April 23rd, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 27, 2018, by the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove concerning the government's Canada summer jobs program.

I would like to thank the member for Langley—Aldergrove for having raised this matter, as well as the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his comments.

When raising the issue, the member for Langley—Aldergrove explained that many people and organizations in his constituency are not on this year's list of recommended projects for the Canada summer jobs program due to their beliefs, faith, personal conscience, or opinion, which are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This, he argued, impeded his ability to administer the program on behalf of his constituents and thus constituted a contempt of Parliament.

Members will remember that, immediately prior to the matter being raised, I reminded the House and, in particular, the member for Langley—Aldergrove, that a requisite condition for a prima facie matter of privilege is that it is raised at the earliest opportunity. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, explains at page 145 what is expected of members in terms of the timeliness of raising a question of privilege:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.

While the member stated that he “just received the list” as proof of the timeliness of the issue, he gave a very detailed account of his communications with Service Canada about the program, which would indicate that he had been aware of the issue for quite some time.

I also recall the member speaking to the issue in the House on several occasions before giving notice to the Chair of his intent to raise a question of privilege, including during statements by members, back on February 13; during the debate on his party's supply day motion of March 1; and during the budget debate on March 20. It is therefore very difficult for the Chair, then, to accept that this matter could not have been raised earlier. As Speaker, I am no more persuaded to do so by the argument of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands that they did not want to waste my time.

To be clear, the condition of raising a question of privilege at the earliest opportunity is not an arbitrary one. In a ruling delivered on January 30, 2018, I addressed this at page 16516 of the Debates:

There is a tacit understanding that, if a matter goes to the heart of a Member’s or the House’s privileges and immunities, or that contempt is involved, it is of the highest importance and should be addressed urgently.

Speaker Sauvé also explained it well in a ruling on May 26, 1981, when she stated at page 9924 of the Debates:

There has to be a balance in relation to a question of privilege. If an hon. member has a question of privilege, then it has to be dealt with very rapidly. If we defer questions of privilege for several days and they are serious, then I wonder what the meaning...of a question of privilege is. If it is urgent, it is urgent and therefore has to be heard immediately.

On that basis alone, the Chair cannot find that this question of privilege constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

As for the substantive arguments brought forward, a close review reveals that the member for Langley—Aldergrove is effectively taking issue with the eligibility criteria of a government program.

What is being challenged is neither a rule nor a practice of the House and is thus an issue to which the authority of the Chair does not extend. On November 22, 2016, I stated at page 7084 of the Debates:

It is equally clear that when members request redress with respect to rules external to the House, as Speaker I can neither interpret nor enforce them. It has long been the case that the Speaker's role is limited to ensuring that the body of rules and practices that the House has adopted are respected and upheld.

My predecessor also made this point on May 12, 2014, at page 5220 of the Debates , when he stated:

It is equally clear that it is not within the Speaker's authority to adjudicate on government policies or processes....

[T]he distinction between governmental procedures and House procedures remains and must be acknowledged.

Additionally, for privilege to be involved, it must be demonstrated that members, or the House as a whole, were impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties as they relate to a proceeding in Parliament. As Bosc and Gagnon state at page 119:

In instances where Members have claimed that they have been obstructed or harassed, not directly in their parliamentary roles, but while being involved in matters of a political or constituency-related nature, Speakers have consistently ruled that this does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege.

Accordingly, I cannot find this constitutes a prima facie contempt of this House.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, April 17th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 21, 2018, by the the hon. House leader for the official opposition concerning answers provided to the House during oral questions by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I would like to thank the Opposition House Leader for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the member for Durham for their comments.

In raising the matter, the House leader for the official opposition contended that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness provided contradictory answers to the House on February 26th and 27th in response to a simple question about who was responsible for an invitation sent to Mr. Jaspal Atwal for an event during the Prime Minister's recent visit to India. She argued that despite the members' right to obtain accurate and non-conflicting information when asking questions of the government, the government refuses to clarify the matter.

On March 27, the member for Durham added a second allegation, that of conflicting answers as to the confidentiality of information provided by the Prime Minister's national security adviser in a briefing to journalists about the same matter.

The parliamentary secretary argued that the question of privilege was not anything more than a matter of debate given that it concerns a dispute as to accuracy of answers to oral questions and that members must be taken at their word.

To summarize this issue, the Chair is being asked to decide whether answers provided by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are, in fact, contradictory and, ultimately, provide a conclusive finding of fact in the matter.

This presupposes an authority that I, as Speaker, do not have. As members are only too aware, the role of the Speaker as it relates to the accuracy of statements is very restricted, as I can determine neither their veracity nor their consistency with prior statements. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at page 529:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.

Furthermore, as I had cause to say on May 18, 2017, at page 11397 of Debates:

As members will know, the exchange of information in this place is constantly subject to varying and, yes, contradictory, views and perceptions. This, of course, heightens the risk that, inadvertently, a member making a statement may be mistaken, or, in turn, that a member listening may misunderstand what another has stated.

Speaker Jerome alluded to a similar situation, stating on June 4, 1975, on page 6431 of Debates:

...a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

For the Chair to accept an accusation that the House was deliberately misled, it must be able to ascertain with a high degree of certainty that the statement was in fact misleading, that the member knew when making the statement that it was incorrect, and that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

While the Chair understands that the significant complexity and the considerable media coverage of the issue may be conducive to different interpretations, the Chair is not convinced that the House has been deliberately misled. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this matter.

I would like to thank hon. members for their attention.

Debate, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, who has been waiting patiently.

[Points of Order, April 17th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 28, 2018, by the member for Mégantic—L’Érable concerning access to the galleries on budget day.

I would like to thank the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for having raised this matter as well as the members for Chilliwack—Hope, Berthier—Maskinongé, and Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for their remarks.

In raising the matter, the member for Mégantic—L’Érable put forward the information that on budget day, the Minister of Finance had booked all seats in the galleries, including those reserved for opposition members, therefore leaving the manager of his constituency office unable to secure either an access card from a finance department official or access to a gallery. Then, despite many seats in all galleries ultimately being unfilled on that day, he explained that his guest was again denied access by Parliamentary Protective Service, as she was without a pass from the Department of Finance. Stating that access to the galleries is the responsibility of the Speaker, and not the Department of Finance, he believed that this constituted interference by the executive branch in the administrative responsibilities of the House.

The Sergeant-at-Arms' office provided me with details on the procedures for gallery access on budget day as well as the sequence of events in this particular case, for which I thank them. As members are aware, there is a long-standing tradition that the Minister of Finance is allocated extra seats on budget day in the south gallery and the diplomatic gallery by way of a request submitted to the Sergeant-at-Arms' office. This year, this request was submitted and extra seats were allocated, as per the usual practice. As for the north gallery, a portion of it can also be provided to the government on budget day. That being said, seats remain available for overflow from other galleries, and extra seating can be requested by opposition parties. On budget day, only a portion of the north gallery was reserved by the Department of Finance.

Thus, as the galleries were evidently not reserved entirely for guests of the Minister of Finance, the situation as described by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable was unfortunate, particularly when there was ample seating available. It is also troubling to the Chair that the information that his guest received from various Parliamentary Protective Service employees was inaccurate.

As Speaker, I have been assured that, on the morning of February 27th, the budget day, representatives from Parliamentary Protective Service and the Sergeant-at-Arms' Office met to discuss the events of the day, including the seating plan, as per usual practice. While the appropriate information was made available to all concerned, it appears that it was not transmitted properly by Parliamentary Protective Service to the guest of the Member for Mégantic—L'Érable. The member's frustration is understandable as this miscommunication led to his guest being repeatedly refused access until he took it upon himself to escort her to the galleries.

As Speaker, I have responsibility for administrative matters, including the galleries, and I am committed to ensuring that guests from all sides of this House be allowed to attend our proceedings. I will continue to work with the Sergeant-at-Arms' office and the Parliamentary Protective Service so that communications between the various services are improved and solutions are put forward to prevent these kinds of incidents in the future.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Privilege, March 27th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 2, 2018, by the member for Durham concerning the information provided to members of the press in a media briefing.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Durham for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, and the member for Joliette for their comments.

The member for Durham put forward that the Minister of Public Safety had acknowledged that the Prime Minister's national security adviser provided members of the press with information that he was unwilling to share at the same time with members of Parliament, for reasons of confidentiality and security. The member argued that even if such reasoning were justified, such claims of confidentiality could not override the individual and collective rights of members to access that information, and, as such, accommodations to make the information available must be made.

The parliamentary secretary disagreed, arguing that, since there was no order of the House to divulge to members the sensitive information requested, the privileges of the member and the House could not have been interfered with and the Speaker has no authority to compel the government to release it. Furthermore, he contended that, as matters of privilege necessarily involve a proceeding of Parliament and do not pertain to the actions or inactions of a government department, this was simply a matter of debate.

On February 7, 2013, at page 13,868 of the Debates, my predecessor stated, in a ruling, “access to accurate and timely information is an essential cornerstone of our parliamentary system”. There is not only great truth but also great power in these few words, for they represent a right that is integral to the health of our democracy. They also explain, to some extent, why members take seriously the need to defend their right to access timely and accurate information in order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, particularly their role of holding the government to account.

In raising this issue, the member for Durham looked to a ruling by Speaker Milliken on April 27, 2010, for justification for his argument that the right of members to be provided with any and all information is absolute. However, a close reading of that ruling reveals that while it touched on the broader issue of access to information, the core issue was the right of the House to order the production of documents, confidential or not.

Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, First Edition, states at page 281:

...it must be remembered that under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted...

Thus, should the House, by way of a formal motion, order the information from the government, it will be under an obligation to produce it.

However, what is equally true is that this absolute right of the House does not de facto extend to individual members' requests for information. This distinction is crucial to a clear understanding of the limits and obligations with respect to members' access to information and very much informs the merits of this case. Since the House has not ordered the government to produce the information in question, the government is currently under no formal obligation to provide it to the House. The same logic applies to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Moreover, it means that I, as Speaker, do not have the authority to require the government to provide that information to the House.

Given this, and having examined the facts, the Chair is unable to conclude that members were impeded in the discharge of their parliamentary functions. Accordingly, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege in this case.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.