CANADA VOLUME 134 S NUMBER 154 S 2nd SESSION S 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, April 11, 1997 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) The House of Commons Debates are also available on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 9589 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, April 11, 1997 The House met at 10 a.m. exist for briefings which, I am told, are frequently held in the theatre by government departments. Finally, the Chair was in- _______________ formed that the briefing in question was ‘‘off the record,’’ which meant that it would not be televised in the closed circuit system of Prayers the House of Commons and, consequently, could not be viewed by members of Parliament. _______________ [Translation] [Translation] In the case which is presently before us, the Chair must address PRIVILEGE two issues. I will first deal with the issue of whether or not there THE DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION—SPEAKER’S has been a breach of privilege insofar as the member was denied RULING access to information by departmental officials. I will then ex- amine the claim that the actions of the department constituted a The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, I am now prepared to rule contempt of Parliament. on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Surrey—White Rock—South Langley on Friday, March 21, con- [English] cerning the actions allegedly taken by officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. On December 1, 1992 when a member complained that the media had been given information by the government concerning I would like to thank the Leader of the Government in the House financial assistance to Canadian Airlines when the same informa- of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, as well as the hon. tion was denied to members of Parliament, Speaker Fraser ruled member for St. Albert for their comments in this matter. page 14360 of the Debates there was no question of privilege. He [English] also reminded the House that: The hon. member for Surrey—White Rock—South Langley Privilege is properly raised only when something has happened that makes it impossible or nearly impossible to carry out the obligations that a member has as a claimed that on the morning of March 21 officials of the Depart- member of this House. ment of Citizenship and Immigration refused to allow her to attend a briefing on changes to the immigration investor program. The On December 15, 1987, a member objected to the fact that the hon. member argued that, by making this information available to government had established a press lock-up and briefing regarding the media before members of Parliament, the department acted in a a proposed agricultural program and that members were denied way which constituted a contempt of Parliament as well as a breach access to the information. Speaker Fraser’s ruling which can be of her parliamentary privileges. found at page 11788 of the Debates, stated that this was not a prima I have reviewed the facts surrounding the incident, and after facie question of privilege because it did not impinge on the further consultations, my understanding of the matter is as follows: member’s ability to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament. a notice was issued to the media by the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announcing that the minister would In the matter submitted by the member for Surrey—White be holding a press conference regarding the immigrant investor Rock—South Langley, the Chair cannot find that she has been program in the National Press Gallery theatre at 10.15 a.m. on obstructed in the performance of her parliamentary duties. The Friday, March 21. The notice further specified that the press question raised did not involve access to parliamentary proceed- conference would be preceded by a technical briefing by depart- ings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting room. mental officials at 9 a.m. Ultimately, as the hon. member pointed out in her presentation, the officials offered to give her the same briefing after question period. It was also confirmed to me that the National Press Gallery applies certain restrictions on the number of people permitted to On the issue of contempt, I would refer again to Speaker Fraser. attend a press conference in the theatre. Yet no such restrictions In a ruling given on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser said: 9590 COMMONS DEBATES April 11, 1997 Government Orders ‘‘Broadly speaking, contempts are offences against the authority or The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the the dignity of the House of Commons’’. motion? D (1010 ) Some hon. members: Agreed. Does the fact that the media was given information before it was Some hon. members: No. going to be made available to the member constitute a contempt of the House of Commons? At page 125 of the 21st edition of Erskine The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea. May, in chapter 9 dealing with contempts, it is stated: Some hon. members: Yea. The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. It seems to me that members of Parliament were not denied Some hon. members: Nay. information or obstructed in their duties in the House. There was, after all, a press conference scheduled for that same morning and it The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. was broadcast on the closed circuit television system of the House, making it accessible to all members. The Chair finds it difficult to And more than five members having risen: conclude that the actions in question were an affront to the authority and dignity of the House. The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred. For the reasons previously stated and in light of the precedents dealing with similar matters, I do not consider that this is a prima * * * facie case of privilege. [English] The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or how access to them is managed. CRIMINAL CODE The hon. member for Surrey—White Rock—South Langley may The House resumed from April 8 consideration of Bill C-17, an have a valid grievance which she may wish to pursue elsewhere; act to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts, as reported however, procedurally the matter has been settled in that it does not (without amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 2. amount to a breach of parliamentary privilege, nor does it consti- tute a contempt of Parliament. Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to a justice bill. It is nice to see a plethora of I thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to the justice bills coming in here at the last minute because of the attention of the Chair. cacophony of noise that has been raised out in the field. That is for the benefit of the minister who, I am sure, is attempting now to fix some of the things that somehow slipped through in his department _____________________________________________ with loopholes that have had some very negative results. I think the minister knows about those and is aware that there has GOVERNMENT ORDERS been a botch-up in the drafting. We brought in a couple of amendments to try to fix some bills last week after we were well into the process. Somebody in the department was not doing the [Translation] work and we have been trying to fix things up. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT We are, as we get closer to the election, trying to deal with issues such as victims rights. That has suddenly become a priority item. The House resumed from March 20 consideration of the motion We are trying to deal with fixing the conditional sentencing on the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-5, an act to amend provisions of some bills now. We have always realized that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors conditional sentencing should not be an option for a judge who is Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act. considering a serious violent offence. It is still an option, which is unfortunate. The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made April 10, the question is deemed to have been put, and the recorded division is However, the minister is bringing in all these bills: C-17 now, deemed to have been deferred. C-27 likely on Monday, debating the victims bill of rights in committee this week, and dealing with all the issues that have been Is the House ready for the question? on the table for two or three years. Finally, on the cusp of the election, the epiphany has struck. The conversion is a bit on the Some hon. members: Question. road, not of Damascus, but perhaps to the next election. I think we April 11, 1997 COMMONS DEBATES 9591 Government Orders are going to see quite a bit of this discussion about the justice time she asks for assurances from the justice system that the man system, how to fix it, what should it entail and so on. will not have access to her, or at least she will know where he is incarcerated, she is assured it will happen and then it does not happen.