Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

April 23, 1998

Debates, pp. 6035-6

On April 21, 1998, after Oral Questions, Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley) raised a question of privilege with regard to a news release issued by the Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade) on March 30, 1998, announcing the establishment of the Canada—China Interparliamentary Group. Mr. Strahl contended that, in issuing this press release, the minister gave the impression that this group would be sanctioned and funded by Parliament. He argued that this was a clear contempt of the House. After the intervention of other members, the Speaker declared that he would take the matter under advisement and get back to the House.^[1]

After Oral Questions on April 23, 1998, the Speaker delivered his ruling on the question of privilege. The Speaker explained the process for the establishment of an interparliamentary group. He declared that the minister, in prejudging a decision that had yet not been taken, had overreached his authority and had done nothing to enhance the prestige of Parliament on the international stage. The Speaker indicated, however, that the matter was not a question of privilege and that the issue must be handled through a different avenue, namely the Board of Internal Economy, which holds statutory responsibility for such matters. He indicated that until the Board had been seized of the matter and pronounced itself on it, there was no officially recognized parliamentary association with China.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On Tuesday, April 21, the honourable member for Fraser Valley raised a question of privilege concerning the government press release announcing the establishment of a Canada—China Interparliamentary Group.

The honourable member for Fraser Valley contended that, in issuing this press release, the Minister for International Trade gave the impression that this group would be sanctioned and funded by Parliament. He argued that this was a clear contempt of the House.

After hearing submissions from several members, I took the matter under advisement. I am now ready to proceed with a ruling on this question of privilege.

The creation of Canadian interparliamentary groups is governed by certain administrative bodies within the House of Commons and the Senate. It is not an executive matter to be decided by cabinet. Although the government may from time to time make recommendations in this regard in the context of Canada’s foreign policy, these matters do not fall directly within the purview of any government department or agency.

Interparliamentary relations are carried on under the responsibility of Parliament. There are in place certain decision-making processes governing their administration. As I mentioned on Tuesday, there are ongoing meetings this week and next week concerning these very matters.

It is the Speaker of the House of Commons who has the responsibility to represent the House in its dealings with foreign legislatures. For this reason, I feel it is my duty to comment on the actions taken by the Minister for International Trade.

In their submissions many honourable members made reference to the fact that actions such as these appear to undercut the authority of Parliament. As parliamentarians we should all be aware of the differences between the authority of cabinet and that of Parliament. In matters of foreign relations, cabinet may enter into agreements with other governments while Parliament pursues relations with other legislatures.

Parliament’s decisions are taken in light of Canada’s foreign policy and the interests of all Canadians, but cabinet does not dictate the nature or scope of the interparliamentary relations of the Parliament of Canada.

In announcing the establishment of a Canada—China Interparliamentary Group and thereby prejudging a decision which has yet to be taken, the minister clearly overreached his authority. I am somewhat disappointed that a minister of the Crown in acting with such haste may have prejudiced the very outcome that he wished to bring about. Such disregard for the administrative competence of Parliament does nothing to enhance its prestige on the international stage.

Members have expressed their frustration over other announcements by the government which appear to bypass the authority of the House. As I have been reminded, this may have taken place on more than one occasion during this Parliament.

There is reason for legitimate concern since it appears that a pattern is developing in spite of cautions which have been made from the chair. My duty however is to confine myself to the jurisprudence which exists and governs the operation of privilege.

Given the preoccupation over these matters, I would suggest that this particular issue must be handled through a different avenue, namely the Board of Internal Economy, which holds statutory responsibility for such matters. I noted during the discussion on April 21, 1998, five of the honourable members who intervened were members of the Board of Internal Economy.

Until the Board has been seized of this matter and pronounced itself on it, I wish to advise this House that there is no officially recognized parliamentary association with China. Consequently, there can be no interim chairman either from the House or from the Senate.

I regret having to make this statement so publicly. I trust that our Chinese friends will understand that this situation is strictly an internal Canadian matter relating to the basic tenets of our primary law. Indeed, I trust that our Chinese friends will have a better understanding of our parliamentary democracy as we pursue this dialogue.

The Speaker’s referral of the matter to the Board of Internal Economy led to a number of points of order by members seeking clarification of the ruling. John Nunziata (York South—Weston) asked the Speaker who represented independent members on the Board of Internal Economy. The Speaker stated that, generally, the Speaker represents independent members on the Board of Internal Economy.^[2]

P0104-e

36-1

1998-04-23