Committees / Reports

March 28, 2000

Debates, pp. 5368-9

On March 17, 2000, at the commencement of the sitting day, Joe Fontana (London North Centre), Chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, rose on a question of privilege with regard to the premature release of a confidential report to the media by Leon Benoit (Lakeland) before it was presented in the House. Mr. Fontana argued that such disclosure constituted a breach of privilege affecting not only the members of the committee, but also all the other members of the House. As Mr. Benoit was not in the House, the Speaker postponed consideration of the matter.^[1] On March 21, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented its first report on the premature disclosure and the Acting Speaker (Ian McClelland) took the matter under advisement.^[2] Later that day Mr. Benoit was recognized in order to have an opportunity to address the House on the matter. Following interventions by other members the Speaker reserved his decision.^[3]

The Speaker delivered his ruling on March 28, 2000. He recalled the various avenues available to committees for allowing members to settle their grievances or air their concerns before their colleagues, and stated that committees were masters of their own proceedings. He further recalled that, when a committee felt that a situation was so irregular that it must be reported to the House, his role changed. He pointed out that, even when a report was adopted in public session, it was considered confidential until it was presented in the House. The Speaker said that he was bound by the rules as they existed, and quoted the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. He concluded that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred and invited the member for London North Centre to put his motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for London North Centre on Friday, March 17, 2000. I would like to thank the member for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House. I would also like to than the honourable member for Lakeland, the honourable government House leader and other members for their assistance in bringing the facts of this situation before the House.

The honourable member for London North Centre, who chairs the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, indicated that the honourable member for Lakeland had, in his opinion, breached the privileges of all members by the premature disclosure of a draft report from the committee. This disclosure was made by way of a press conference which the honourable member for Lakeland held on March 16 using facilities provided by Parliament after issuing a media advisory using CPAC and the internal communication services of the House. Subsequently, the charges against the honourable member for Lakeland. were repeated in the first report of the Citizenship and Immigration Committee tabled on March 21.

In responding to these charges on March 21, the honourable member for Lakeland raised a number of issues. He pointed out that there had been a deliberate decision of the committee at its meeting of March 2 to undertake the study of its draft report on refugee determination and illegal immigrants in public session. A motion to that effect can be found in the committee’s Minutes of Proceedings of that date. The honourable member held that, while the meetings at which the draft report was considered may have actually been held in camera, the in camera nature of the meeting itself was contrary to an express decision of the committee. In protesting what he took to be an irregular proceeding of the committee, he made reference to an earlier ruling of the Chair given on October 9, 1997^[4], in which all committees were cautioned that care is necessary in laying out the manner in which draft reports will be dealt with.

I want to say, first, that it is not the role of the Speaker to oversee the internal conduct of committees. Committees are masters of their own proceedings, and with that freedom goes the responsibility to see that they carry out their work in conformity with the appropriate rules and practices of this House. The honourable member for Lakeland may well have a legitimate grievance with the manner in which the Citizenship and Immigration Committee has conducted its affairs. However, when members disagree with decisions made by committee Chairs, either tacitly or explicitly, our rules provide avenues either to appeal those decisions or to air those concerns openly in the committee before colleagues. I have a different role to play. When a committee feels that a situation is so irregular that it must be reported to the House then this is where I am called on. As I mentioned earlier, a report on this incident was tabled by the Chairman of the Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 21. The honourable member for Lakeland has stated that he quite consciously and deliberately held a press conference for the purpose of making public the contents of the draft report. He felt that he was entitled to take such action because the document was discussed by the committee during a meeting which he believed ought properly to have been a public meeting. Nonetheless, the Minutes of the Proceedings of the committee for March 16, 2000, clearly indicate that the meeting was held in camera. Similarly, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration rejects the member’s view for its states unequivocally in its first report:

The members of the committee considered the matter…and felt that their privileges had been breached and that the in camera process had been jeopardized because of the disclosure by the member for Lakeland, Alberta.

As Speaker, I am not called upon to judge the manner in which the Committee reversed its earlier decision and, since the committee has seen fit to report this incident to the House, then I, as Speaker, I must take very seriously the committee’s complaint.

Our rules are clear on the matter of the divulgation of a draft report. At page 884 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice members will find the following statement of principle:

Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can be released to the public.

It is further stated on the same page:

Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House.

The Chair appreciates that this rule may, at times, prove inconvenient to some honourable members or to committees themselves and that there are divergent views on how committees should conduct their business when deliberating about the text of a report to the House. However, as your Speaker, I am bound by the rules as they exist. In the present case, I have concluded that I have no alternative but to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

I invite the honourable member for London North Centre to put his motion.

Mr. Fontana moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. During the debate on Mr. Fontana’s motion, “That the matter of the premature disclosure of the committee report by the member for Lakeland be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs”, Ken Epp (Elk Island) moved an amendment to the motion^[5]. Mr. Benoit rose and said that, having examined the Speaker’s ruling, he was apologizing to the House for his actions.^[6] Immediately after, Mr. Fontana rose on a point of order and moved that, with the unanimous consent of the House, his motion be withdrawn. Unanimous consent was refused twice.^[7] Then Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order and asked for unanimous consent to move that the debate on the motion concerning the question of privilege be deemed to have been concluded, that the question be deemed to have been put on the amendment, and that a recorded division be deemed required and deferred until Wednesday, March 29, 2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders. Consent was given and the motion was agreed to.^[8] On March 29, 2000, by unanimous consent the amendment was deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House took a recorded division on the motion “That the matter of the premature disclosure of the committee report by the member for Lakeland be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,” which was negatived.^[9]

P0912-e

36-2

2000-03-28