Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction: lack of adequate interpretation services during a technical briefing on legislation

March 3, 2014

Debates, pp. 3429–30

On February 6, 2014, Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke) rose on a question of privilege with respect to the lack of adequate interpretation provided during a technical briefing on Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, alleging that it prevented Members from fully participating in the debate on the Bill. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform)) indicated that, although there were no professional interpreters, representatives of the Privy Council Office present were able to provide the presentation, as well as all information sheets, press releases and the Bill itself in English and French. After hearing from other Members on that day and on February 7, 2014, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

On March 3, 2014, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He explained that activities related to the seeking of information to participate in debate on a bill do not fall within the strict definition of what constitutes a proceeding in Parliament and, therefore, are not protected by privilege. The Speaker also stated that it is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters. While, acknowledging the legitimacy of the Member’s grievance, the Speaker concluded however that the situation did not constitute a prima facie breach of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 6, 2014, by the Member for Sherbrooke regarding a technical briefing offered by the Minister of State in relation to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Sherbrooke for having raised this matter, as well as the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, the hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition, and the Members for Ottawa—Vanier, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and York South—Weston for their interventions.

The Member for Sherbrooke explained that, at the technical briefing he attended on Tuesday, February 4 on Bill C-23, the interpretation provided was often inadequate and, as he described it, “[a]t times, there was little or no interpretation or it was of poor quality.” This, he felt, had the effect of preventing parliamentarians from participating fully in subsequent debate on the Bill.

The Member went on to note that the protection of official languages in the House is fundamental to ensuring equality among all Members.

For his part, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform recognized that no professional interpreters were present for the briefing, but claimed that parliamentarians had been provided all information in both official languages, including the presentation, information sheets, press releases, and the bill itself.

As has been pointed out by the Member for Sherbrooke, the guarantee of access to and use of both official languages in parliamentary proceedings, in the record-keeping of those proceedings and in legislation is no less than a constitutional requirement—a cornerstone of our parliamentary system. As your Speaker, it remains one of my principal responsibilities to ensure that Members are not impeded in their ability to carry out their parliamentary functions and that their rights and privileges are safeguarded.

In the case of official languages, the House has a long-standing practice of ensuring the availability of professional interpreters during House and committee proceedings. Indeed, this practice extends to many other activities, such as caucus meetings, briefings or any number of parliamentary activities and events. In such cases, if interpreters are not present, the activity is delayed until they arrive, or, if they are not available, the activity is rescheduled. Likewise, if a technical problem arises with the equipment, proceedings are suspended until the issue is resolved. Members will be familiar with this as it has sometimes happened here in the House.

To the Chair’s knowledge, during Government-sponsored activities, similar norms are observed. This is illustrated in a case brought to the attention of the House on October 23, 2013, when a technical briefing on a budget implementation bill was organized but cancelled when it became apparent that no simultaneous interpretation was available. In the Debates for that date, at page 303, the Government House Leader apologized to the House, and stated that:

…arrangements have been made to reschedule this meeting and to hold it properly in both official languages with that capacity available for everyone. It is certainly the expectation of this government that all business be properly conducted in both official languages.

Clearly, in that case, the Government viewed the absence of professional simultaneous interpreters as a serious matter.

When a situation is brought to the Chair’s attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents. In this case, the Member for Sherbrooke is asking the Chair to find that problems with interpretation prevented Members from being able to access departmental information and that this constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

To arrive at such a conclusion, the Chair must assess whether the Member has been obstructed in the discharge of his responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 109, states:

In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.

In addition, at page 111, it indicates that:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities.

The question before the Chair is simple: does attending a departmental briefing that was delivered without full interpretation meet that litmus test? Speaker Parent’s ruling of October 9, 1997, is very instructive, when he states at page 688 of the Debates:

...activities related to the seeking of information in order to prepare a question do not fall within the strict definition of what constitutes a “proceeding in Parliament” and, therefore, they are not protected by privilege.

Today’s case is analogous in that, whether a Member is seeking information in order to prepare a question or to participate in debate on a bill, the same fundamental definitions and principles apply. Whether 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.

Furthermore, in this case a Government department is responsible for the situation which the Member decries. On this point, Speaker Bosley stated on May 15, 1985, at page 4769 of Debates:

I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.

My own ruling of February 7, 2013, reached the same conclusion, when at page 13869 of Debates, I stated:

It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in government processes, no matter how frustrating they may appear to be to the Member.

The Chair must respect the strict confines of parliamentary privilege in reaching its decision. Therefore, while it appears that the hon. Member for Sherbrooke has a legitimate grievance, the Chair cannot conclude that this situation constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

That being said, this decision does not diminish Members’ need for full and equal access to information about legislation nor does it discount the value placed on the provision of such information in both official languages.

While I cannot provide the Member for Sherbrooke a privilege-based parliamentary remedy to his grievance, he may wish to explore other means at his disposal by direct discussions with the Minister or raising the matter with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I thank the House for its attention.