Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

February 16, 1995

Debates, pp. 9734-5

Following Oral Questions on November 2, 1994,^[1] Jim Hart (Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt) rose on a question of privilege concerning a breach of confidentiality of correspondence between him and one of his constituents. He believed that this incident which had occurred a day earlier had infringed his rights as a member.^[2] During Oral Questions on that day, Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment) had quoted from a letter which Mr. Hart had sent to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on behalf of one of his constituents.^[3] He believed that both the Deputy Primer Minister and Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage), who had allegedly made the letter available to the Deputy Prime Minister, were both responsible for this breach of privilege. In response to the allegation, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the letter was part of the public records of the CRTC. The Speaker agreed to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to report back to the House at the earliest opportunity. On February 8, 1995, following Oral Questions, Mr. Hart once again rose on the matter of the disclosure of the letter by the Deputy Prime Minister.^[4] The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

On February 16, 1995, following Oral Questions, the Speaker delivered his ruling. The Speaker concluded that the letter sent from Mr. Hart to the Minister of Canadian Heritage was in fact a public document and therefore could be quoted in the House. However, as his predecessors have repeatedly ruled, the Speaker noted that it is not the role of the Speaker to rule on questions of law concerning the application of the Privacy Act and the laws and policies governing CRTC dossiers. The Speaker concluded by stating that in the case before him, there was no prima facie question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on a question of privilege by the honourable member for Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, which he raised first on November 2, 1994, and then again on February 8, 1995.

On November 2, the member rose to complain that during Question Period the previous day the Deputy Prime Minister had breached confidentiality by quoting from a letter which the member had written on behalf of a constituent to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. He contended that by revealing the contents of this letter without his permission the Deputy Prime Minister had interfered with his ability to carry out his duties. He argued that his constituents would now wonder whether or not matters on which they sought his assistance could be kept confidential.

The Deputy Prime Minister responded that the letter was part of the public record of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

On February 8, 1995, the honourable member again rose on a question of privilege to state that new information had come to light on the same matter. He explained that the constituent on whose behalf he had written had received a letter from the manager of correspondence and complaints at the CRTC. In that letter the constituent was advised that under the terms of the Privacy Act, unless she requested otherwise, the honourable member’s letter, sent on her behalf, and any other correspondence related to her complaint would become part of the licensee’s publicly accessible file in early January.

The honourable member now argues that contrary to the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister his letter was not in fact a public document when the Deputy Prime Minister quoted from it last November and again requested that I review the matter.

The chief government whip then intervened and argued that what was at issue was a question of law and that the Speaker does not rule on such matters. He also added that if the honourable member had a complaint with the CRTC, there were other avenues by which he could pursue it.

Let me first address the matter of whether or not the member’s letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage was a public document and therefore able to be quoted from in debate. Beauchesne 6th edition, page 151, citation 495(7) states:

When a letter, even though it may have been written originally as a private letter, becomes part of a record of a department, it becomes a public document, and if quoted by a minister in debate, must be tabled on request.

From this, I must conclude that the letter from the honourable member to the minister was in fact a public document and therefore could be quoted from in the House.

It is not for me to decide whether or not, as the Deputy Prime Minister stated, the letter was part of the public record of the CRTC. The application of the Privacy Act and the laws and policies governing CRTC dossiers are beyond my purview. As my predecessors have repeatedly ruled, it is not now, nor has it ever been, the role of the Speaker to rule on questions of law. This has been a longstanding practice and I draw members’ attention to Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, 4th edition, 1916 at page 180 which reads that the Speaker:

—will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same be raised on a point of order or privilege.

This is also repeated in citation 168(5) of Beauchesne 6th edition, 1989.

On matters of privilege, it is up to the House to decide whether or not a member’s privileges have been breached. The Speaker must be persuaded that there is some evidence that a member has been hindered in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties, before putting the question to the whole House for determination.

Having carefully reviewed the procedural authorities and the interventions of honourable members, I must conclude that in the case before us there is no prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this decision.

P0109-e

35-1

1995-02-16