Arielle Kayabaga, London West
Linked statement
“The government did not break any rules. We offered briefings to all parties on this bill after introducing it. Past Speakers have ruled that the government can announce policy updates outside the House, as long as it does not stop members from doing their jobs. Nobody was stopped from doing their job here.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in response to the question of privilege raised on October 5 by the member for Saint-Jean concerning briefings for members on Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. As members will recall, this bill was introduced on September 21 during Routine Proceedings. I can confirm that technical briefings on the bill were offered to all parties after the bill was introduced. Having read the member’s remarks carefully, I suspect that her main concern is not the technical briefing on Bill C-39, but rather the government’s update on the west coast pipeline on October 1. If that is the member’s issue, I can assure members that there are still clear precedents supporting the view that the government may announce policies and provide updates on non-legislative matters outside the House. The precedent the member cited in her remarks has no bearing on the issue that was raised. This briefing did not concern a legislative measure that was to be presented to the House during the notice period. Rather, this was an update on a policy matter. That distinction is very important. Our government is committed to working constructively with all parties in the House. The Prime Minister has stated that the government will work with other parties to advance our strategic and legislative agenda. In fact, we have offered technical briefings to all members of Parliament on legislative proposals once they have been introduced in the House. We are doing this not only because it is the right thing to do, but also to help inform and elevate the substantive debate on legislative proposals before the House. I now want to turn to the precedents that support this view. On April 11, 1997, Speaker Parent delivered his ruling on a matter concerning a technical briefing, which the media was invited to attend, given by officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration prior to a press conference by the minister regarding the department’s immigrant investor program. In his decision, he reviewed a number of precedents and concluded that the matter did not constitute a prima facie question of privilege. The Speaker stated: On December 1, 1992 when a member complained that the media had been given information by the government concerning financial assistance to Canadian Airlines when the same information was denied to members of Parliament, Speaker Fraser ruled [at] page 14360 of the Debates there was no question of privilege. He also reminded the House that: Privilege is properly raised only when something has happened that makes it impossible or nearly impossible to carry out the obligations that a member has as a member of this House. On December 15, 1987, a member objected to the fact that the government had established a press lock-up and briefing regarding a proposed agricultural program and that members were denied access to the information. Speaker Fraser’s ruling which can be found at page 11788 of the Debates, stated that this was not a prima facie question of privilege because it did not impinge on the member’s ability to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament. In the matter submitted by the member for Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, the Chair cannot find that she has been obstructed in the performance of her parliamentary duties. The question raised did not involve access to parliamentary proceedings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting room. Ultimately, as the hon. member pointed out in her presentation, the officials offered to give her the same briefing after question period. On the issue of contempt, I would refer again to Speaker Fraser. In a ruling given on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser said: “Broadly speaking, contempts are offences against the authority or the dignity of the House of Commons”. Does the fact that the media was given information before it was going to be made available to the member constitute a contempt of the House of Commons? At page 125 of the 21st edition of Erskine May, in chapter 9 dealing with contempts, it is stated: The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings. It seems to me that members of Parliament were not denied information or obstructed in their duties in the House. There was, after all, a press conference scheduled for that same morning and it was broadcast on the closed circuit television system of the House, making it accessible to all members. The Chair finds it difficult to conclude that the actions in question were an affront to the authority and dignity of the House. For the reasons previously stated and in light of the precedents dealing with similar matters, I do not consider that this is a prima facie case of privilege. The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or how access to them is managed.”
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in response to the question of privilege raised on October 5 by the member for Saint-Jean concerning briefings for members on Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. As members will recall, this bill was introduced on September 21 during Routine Proceedings. I can confirm that technical briefings on the bill were offered to all parties after the bill was introduced. Having read the member’s remarks carefully, I suspect that her main concern is not the technical briefing on Bill C-39, but rather the government’s update on the west coast pipeline on October 1. If that is the member’s issue, I can assure members that there are still clear precedents supporting the view that the government may announce policies and provide updates on non-legislative matters outside the House. The precedent the member cited in her remarks has no bearing on the issue that was raised. This briefing did not concern a legislative measure that was to be presented to the House during the notice period. Rather, this was an update on a policy matter. That distinction is very important. Our government is committed to working constructively with all parties in the House. The Prime Minister has stated that the government will work with other parties to advance our strategic and legislative agenda. In fact, we have offered technical briefings to all members of Parliament on legislative proposals once they have been introduced in the House. We are doing this not only because it is the right thing to do, but also to help inform and elevate the substantive debate on legislative proposals before the House. I now want to turn to the precedents that support this view. On April 11, 1997, Speaker Parent delivered his ruling on a matter concerning a technical briefing, which the media was invited to attend, given by officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration prior to a press conference by the minister regarding the department’s immigrant investor program. In his decision, he reviewed a number of precedents and concluded that the matter did not constitute a prima facie question of privilege. The Speaker stated: On December 1, 1992 when a member complained that the media had been given information by the government concerning financial assistance to Canadian Airlines when the same information was denied to members of Parliament, Speaker Fraser ruled [at] page 14360 of the Debates there was no question of privilege. He also reminded the House that: Privilege is properly raised only when something has happened that makes it impossible or nearly impossible to carry out the obligations that a member has as a member of this House. On December 15, 1987, a member objected to the fact that the government had established a press lock-up and briefing regarding a proposed agricultural program and that members were denied access to the information. Speaker Fraser’s ruling which can be found at page 11788 of the Debates, stated that this was not a prima facie question of privilege because it did not impinge on the member’s ability to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament. In the matter submitted by the member for Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, the Chair cannot find that she has been obstructed in the performance of her parliamentary duties. The question raised did not involve access to parliamentary proceedings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting room. Ultimately, as the hon. member pointed out in her presentation, the officials offered to give her the same briefing after question period. On the issue of contempt, I would refer again to Speaker Fraser. In a ruling given on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser said: “Broadly speaking, contempts are offences against the authority or the dignity of the House of Commons”. Does the fact that the media was given information before it was going to be made available to the member constitute a contempt of the House of Commons? At page 125 of the 21st edition of Erskine May, in chapter 9 dealing with contempts, it is stated: The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings. It seems to me that members of Parliament were not denied information or obstructed in their duties in the House. There was, after all, a press conference scheduled for that same morning and it was broadcast on the closed circuit television system of the House, making it accessible to all members. The Chair finds it difficult to conclude that the actions in question were an affront to the authority and dignity of the House. For the reasons previously stated and in light of the precedents dealing with similar matters, I do not consider that this is a prima facie case of privilege. The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or how access to them is managed.