Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

March 8, 1996

Debates, pp. 485-6

After Oral Questions on February 28, 1996, Deborah Grey (Beaver River) rose on a question of privilege concerning the refusal of the Printing Services to print a document and alleging the involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office in the matter. A document which appeared to belong to the Liberal caucus had come into Ms. Grey’s possession and she had sent it to the Printing Services of the House to have copies made for the use of her caucus, research staff and the press. Ms. Grey stated that she received a call later in the day saying that someone in the Prime Minister’s Office had told Printing Services not to reproduce or release copies to anyone except Liberal members. Later, Ms. Grey indicated that she was notified by the Printing Services that her documents would be delivered. The Speaker intervened to say that his staff had briefed him on the matter and that the situation had been corrected. He apologized on behalf of the House staff and stated he believed it was not necessary to pursue the matter further.^[1]

On March 4, 1996, after Prayers, Ms. Grey again raised the matter. She indicated that the involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office in this matter constituted a contempt of Parliament and indicated she was prepared to move a motion stating that an official in the Prime Minister’s Office coerced, intimidated and incited staff of the House of Commons into not fulfilling their mandate in answer to a request for printing. The Speaker requested that the member table the cited document and after hearing interventions from other members, indicated that he would come back to the House on the matter, if necessary.^[2]

On March 8, 1996, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He noted that there was no doubt that House staff was responsible for the mismanagement of the printing request. Since the official from the Prime Minister’s Office did not initiate the situation but rather had reacted based upon an inquiry from House staff, it was difficult to conclude from the facts presented that the official in question coerced, intimidated or incited the staff of the House of Commons. It appeared to the Speaker that what had occurred was done inadvertently and represented an unfortunate but isolated incident. He assured members that the staff of the House of Commons strove for a high standard of competence and professionalism, in its services. The Speaker ruled that he did not find that a prima facie contempt had occurred.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I will now rule on the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for Beaver River on Monday, March 4, 1996, concerning the alleged interference of an official of the Prime Minister’s Office in a request to the Printing Services of the House.

I want to thank the deputy leader of the government in the House, the chief government whip, the whip of the Reform Party and the honourable member for Mississauga South for their comments on this question.

In her submission the honourable member argued that an employee of the Prime Minister’s Office had attempted to coerce, intimidate and incite the staff of the House of Commons to refuse a request for printing which she had made on February 28. This, she claimed, constituted a contempt of the House and she requested that I rule a prima facie case.

As honourable members know, I did rule on the matter of the printing of this document when it was first raised on February 28. As I noted at that time, the House staff erred by not complying with the request made by the honourable member for Beaver River, which was entirely in accordance with the guidelines of the Board of Internal Economy.

The document was subsequently printed and I, in the House, apologized to her for any inconvenience. I also met privately with the member and she was made aware of all the circumstances surrounding this matter.

The Chair takes very seriously any matter concerning the privileges of members, particularly any matter which may constitute a contempt of the House.

The honourable member for Beaver River is correct in pointing out that new forms of contempt may arise and the House should not be constrained in dealing with them.

In dealing with matters of privilege and contempt, it is the House which determines whether a breach of its privileges or a contempt has occurred. It is the role of the Chair, based on evidence presented by the member, to determine whether or not the alleged contempt is of such importance that the regular business of the House should be set aside to deal with the matter immediately; that is, whether or not the matter is prima facie.

Therefore it is the responsibility of any member in raising a question of privilege, particularly a possible contempt, to bring forth sufficient evidence to enable the Speaker to find that a prima facie case exists.

Beauchesne, 6th edition, citation 117(1) states in part:

Once the claim of breach of privilege has been made, it is the duty of the Speaker to decide if a prima facie case can be established. The Speaker requires to be satisfied, —that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify giving such precedence—

Since the original matter was raised on February 28 I have had further discussions with senior House officials. There is no doubt that House staff was responsible for the mismanagement of this printing request.

Since the official from the Prime Minister’ s Office did not initiate the situation but rather reacted based on inquiry from House staff, it is difficult to conclude from the facts presented by the honourable member that the official coerced, intimidated or incited the staff of the House of Commons.

It appears to me that what occurred in this case was done inadvertently and that it represents an unfortunate but isolated incident.

I must find that the honourable member did not provide the Chair with sufficient evidence to allow it to find that a prima facie contempt had occurred.

I assure all members that the staff of the House of Commons continues to strive for a high standard of competence and professionalism in the services it offers. However, I do want to remind the staff as well as government officials that in dealing with members of Parliament confidentiality is key and that members must be able to rely on their complete discretion.

I would like to thank the honourable member for Beaver River for having raised this very serious issue and assure her, and all members of this House, that corrective steps have been put in place to ensure that such an occurrence does not take place again.

P0111-e

35-2

1996-03-08