Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: disclosure of a report before its tabling in the House

November 2, 2018

Debates, p. 23208

On October 31, 2018, Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill) rose on a question of privilege alleging the premature disclosure of the “2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration” that day. Ms. Rempel stated that her office had received media requests related to the government’s immigration plan immediately before Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) tabled the report in the House, suggesting that the media had received a copy of the plan before it was tabled. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Anthony Rota) recommended that Ms. Rempel provide an hour’s notice of her intention to raise the question of privilege. Ms. Rempel and Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope) argued that advance notice should not be required as, pursuant to Standing Order 48(2), the matter was arising out of a proceeding in the chamber during a sitting. The Assistant Deputy Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1] Later in the sitting, Ms. Rempel rose to provide further details and argued that the actions of the minister constituted a prima facie case of privilege.^[2]

On November 2, 2018, the minister rose to respond to the question of privilege, explaining that circumstances during the proceedings of the House on October 31, 2018, had prevented him from tabling the report when he had intended to do so. That being the case, he indicated that an item contained in the report was provided to the media before the document was tabled. The minister acknowledged the severity of the matter and apologized unreservedly for his actions, explaining that he had intended no ill will and had since undertaken measures to ensure that the situation would not happen again. Following his apology, Ms. Rempel rose to request that her question of privilege be allowed to stand and that the Speaker uphold the members’ right of first access to information.^[3]

Resolution

On November 2, 2018, the Assistant Deputy Speaker (Carol Hughes) delivered her ruling. She expressed concern that members of Parliament had had to play catch-up with members of the media and reminded the House that members reserve the right to access timely and accurate information. The Assistant Deputy Speaker stated that, in light of the minister’s apology and in keeping with parliamentary practice and precedent, the Chair was bound to accept his word and considered the matter closed. She advised the government to be more cautious regarding how information was released in the future.

Decision of the Chair

The Assistant Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for his explanation and apology regarding the circumstances of his tabling the document entitled “2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration” two days ago, and I thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for the additional comments she has just made.

The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill that same day was an important reminder that all members are entitled to receive timely and accurate information. She reinforced this again today. The Chair was concerned about the member’s assertion that the report was released to the media before it was tabled in the House. As a result, members of the House found themselves in the position of having to play catch-up with members of the media.

In this case, however, I appreciate the minister’s apology and, as practice and precedent dictate, I am bound to accept his word. Trusting that the minister, and indeed all other members of the government, will be more cautious in how they release information in the future, I consider this matter to be closed. I thank all hon. members for their attention.

I thank all members for their attention and for contributing on this matter.

Postscript

Later that sitting, Ms. Rempel rose on a point of order to request clarification on what constitutes a breach of privilege. Concerned that on several occasions the government had, without censure, provided information to the media before providing it to members of Parliament, she asked the Assistant Deputy Speaker to clarify whether a precedent was being set. The Assistant Deputy Speaker reminded Ms. Rempel that a ruling had already been delivered on the matter and that she considered it closed.⁴