The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Tabling of documents by a Minister: revealing political party donations by a citizen

November 17, 2011

Debates, p. 3224

On November 3, 2011, the House approved the appointment of Michael Ferguson as Auditor General of Canada.^[1]

On November 4, 2011, during Oral Questions, a number of Liberal Members mentioned that Michel Dorais of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada had resigned in protest over the appointment of Mr. Ferguson. At the end of Oral Questions, Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) tabled a document indicating that Mr. Dorais had made a donation to the former Liberal leader in 2009.^[2] Later that day, Wayne Easter (Malpeque) called on the Speaker because he felt the Minister had acted inappropriately in tabling a document that revealed donations to a political party by an individual, which would destroy his reputation. In his view, it went against freedom of choice, freedom of speech and freedom of political affiliation and used fear and intimidation, which is unbecoming of a Minister. Other Members also spoke to the matter, and the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[3]

Resolution

The Speaker delivered his ruling on November 17, 2011. He stated that no offence had been committed, as Ministers enjoy considerable latitude for the tabling of various documents pursuant to Standing Order 32(2).^[4] However, he issued a caution to the House. He indicated that it would be preferable to avoid any reference to private citizens if doing so could damage their reputation, since they do not enjoy parliamentary immunity and the absolute freedom of speech that Members do; these privileges are far-reaching, and Members must exercise them with care.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the Member for Malpeque, on November 4, concerning the tabling of a document by the President of the Treasury Board.

I would like to thank the Member for Malpeque for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, and the Members for Richmond—Arthabaska and Winnipeg North for their comments.

The facts of this case are as follows. During Oral Questions on Friday, November 4, 2011, questions were posed which made reference to the resignation of a Member of the Auditor General’s internal audit committee in protest over the appointment of the new Auditor General. In one of these questions, the Member for Bourassa named the individual concerned. Then, after Question Period, the President of the Treasury Board tabled a document that detailed a political donation this individual had made, referring to him by name twice.

In raising this point of order, the Member for Malpeque condemned the Minister’s action, claiming that:

It is fear and intimidation. It can put the chill of fear into public servants and individuals in Canada donating to a political party that a Minister will use that against them. By implication, it can be damaging to a person’s reputation.

In response, the Chief Government Whip pointed out that since the document contained publicly available information, no confidentiality had been breached and no offence committed.

Before dealing with the substance of the point of order raised by the Member for Malpeque, I would remind the House that Ministers enjoy considerable latitude and may, at their discretion, table a wide range of documents in the House.

Standing Order 32(2)^[5] states:

A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of a Minister, may, in his or her place in the House, state that he or she proposes to lay upon the Table of the House, any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government, and, thereupon, the same shall be deemed for all purposes to have been laid before the House.

Accordingly, it is clear that the President of the Treasury Board was acting within the established rules of the House in tabling a document for the information of Members.

However, the information in the document tabled by the President of the Treasury Board, though publicly available, remains information about an individual in his capacity as a private citizen. Therefore, the Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind all Members of what my predecessors had to say on similar matters.

As Speaker Fraser outlined in a ruling on May 5, 1987, the freedom of speech Members of the House enjoy is an “awesome and far-reaching privilege”, one that allows our “parliamentary system to operate free of any hindrance”.

But he added, at page 5766 of the Debates, that:

Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the hon. Members of this place... All hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.

This same caution is taken up in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 616, which states:

Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for this.

Cognizant of this fundamental principle and having acknowledged that there is no rule that prohibits mentioning individuals by name in the House, my predecessors have warned Members of the potential risks of referring to members of the public in the House.

On April 24, 2007, on page [8586] of Debates, Speaker Milliken said:

It is incumbent upon all Members to exercise fairness with respect to those who are not in a position to defend themselves. That being said, the Chair finds no grounds for further action in the present case.

On May 26, 1987, at page 6375 of Debates, Speaker Fraser went even further, stating:

It is not simply that such people could be slandered, with impunity, without any redress available to them, but that wrongdoing may be implied simply by making a personal reference.

On the same occasion he reminded the House of the immediacy with which remarks are widely communicated, stating:

We are living in a day when anything said in this place is said right across the country and that is why I have said before and why I say again that care ought to be exercised, keeping in mind that the great privilege we do have ought not to be abused.

I need not elaborate on the fact that what was true in 1987 is even truer today.

It is these wise cautionary remarks that have prompted me to use this occasion to remind all hon. Members to use great care when referring to or singling out an individual who does not have a voice here in this House and to avoid circumstances when, by such reference, an individual could have his or her reputation damaged without having the opportunity to respond.

I thank all hon. Members for their attention.