Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction and interference: Government alleged to have blocked access to information

February 7, 2013

Debates, pp. 13868–9

On January 31, 2013, Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) rose on a question of privilege arising from his efforts to obtain information from Public Works and Government Services Canada. Mr. Bélanger charged that government procedures requiring elected officials to seek public information through the Minister’s office, while ordinary citizens could obtain the same information directly from the department, created an inequality of access to information between government and opposition Members. He claimed that these procedures impeded him from carrying out his duties as a Member, particularly as he required the information in preparation for Oral Questions. Other Members made comments on that day and on February 1, 2013.^[1] On February 4, 2013, Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) contended that matters of a constituency-related nature were not matters of privilege and suggested the best way for Members to obtain information from the government was by way of oral or written questions. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

The Speaker delivered his ruling on February 7, 2013. He confirmed that parliamentary privilege applies only in instances where Members are participating in what is deemed to be proceedings in Parliament and that constituency work or preparing to ask an oral question is not considered to be a parliamentary proceding. He further stated that while the Member may have a legitimate grievance, it was beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or government processes. Accordingly, the Chair could not conclude that Mr. Bélanger had been impeded in the performance of his parliamentary duties, and thus found that no prima facie breach of privilege had occurred.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on January 31, 2013, by the hon. Member for Ottawa—Vanier regarding the procedures of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada with respect to providing information to Members of Parliament.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Ottawa—Vanier for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. Opposition House Leader and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House for their comments.

The hon. Member for Ottawa—Vanier charged that Government procedures requiring elected officials to seek public information through the Minister’s office, while ordinary citizens could obtain the very same information directly from the department, impeded him from carrying out his duties as a Member, particularly as this information was required for him to prepare to ask questions during question period. He worried that it was the Government’s intention to make it difficult if not impossible for him to serve his constituents.

The Member further stated that he believed this disparity in procedures was being applied in such a manner so as to create an inequality of access to information between Government Members and opposition Members.

The Parliamentary Secretary expressed the view that constituency-related duties of a Member are not covered by parliamentary privilege and suggested that there are other ways for the Member to obtain the information that he is seeking, namely through written and oral questions.

Given that a Member’s access to accurate and timely information is an essential cornerstone of our parliamentary system, it is perhaps not surprising that, in the past, other Members have raised very similar concerns about access to departmental information.

Simply put, the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Ottawa—Vanier raises the question of whether an alleged interference with a Member’s ability to access departmental information in a timely and equitable manner constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

When the hon. Member first raised this matter, he spoke of the need to have a, “level playing field of access to information for the benefit of the constituents we have been elected to represent”.

A careful review of various precedents on the issue of whether parliamentary privilege covers a Member’s constituency responsibilities reveals that Speakers have been quite categorical in stating that parliamentary privilege applies only in instances where Members were participating in what is deemed to be a parliamentary proceeding. On October 9, 1997, at page 689 of Debates, Speaker Parent explained:

The Chair is mindful of the multiple responsibilities, duties and constituency related activities of all Members and of the importance they play in the work of every Member of Parliament. However, my role as your Speaker is to consider only those matters that affect the parliamentary work of Members.

In the same ruling, Speaker Parent added, at page 688 of Debates that:

In order for a Member to claim that his privileges have been breached or that a contempt has occurred, he or she must have been functioning as a Member at the time of the alleged offence, that is, actually participating in a proceeding of Parliament. The activities of Members in their constituencies do not appear to fall within the definition of a “proceeding in Parliament”.

In a ruling on a similar matter on February 4, 2008, which can be found at page 2540 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken came to the same conclusion. Other Speakers have likewise had occasion to clearly define what constitutes parliamentary work or a proceeding in Parliament.

The hon. Member for Ottawa—Vanier did in fact attempt to make that very link to the proceedings in Parliament when he said that he needed the information in question as part of his work in preparing to ask a question during question period. It is the view of the Chair that this falls short of established definitions of parliamentary work. Again, Speaker Parent’s October 9, 1997, ruling is very instructive in this regard. He stated at page 688 of the Debates that:

After careful consideration of the precedents, I conclude that 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.

For his part, the Opposition House Leader reminded the House of Speaker Bosley’s ruling on May 15, 1985, at page 4769 of Debates, in which he declared:

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.

This is not to say that the hon. Member does not have a legitimate grievance or that the departmental response and process that he encountered does not warrant review, if only for its apparent inefficiency. The Member may wish to approach the Minister to see if a satisfactory accommodation is possible. In addition, as Speaker Milliken once suggested in a similar case, the Member could also seek to have the appropriate standing committee inquire about the departmental procedures in place to assist Members of Parliament in seeking information with a view to making recommendations for improvement.

However, as Speaker, I am obliged to assess situations of this kind within the strict parameters that flow from our precedents and usages as they relate to parliamentary privilege. 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.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedents cited, the Chair cannot conclude that the Member for Ottawa—Vanier has been impeded in the performance of his parliamentary duties and thus I cannot find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

I thank all Members for their attention on this matter.