CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 009 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, October 2, 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 followingaddress: http://www.parl.gc.ca 367 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, October 2, 1997 The House met at 10 a.m. Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to _______________ provide additional information for your consideration of the question of privilege raised by the member for Wild Rose. Prayers The member for Wild Rose alleges that an official of the _______________ Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development deliber- ately misled him and subsequently denied him information to D (1000) which he was entitled as a member of Parliament, thus constituting a contempt of Parliament. This is not the case. I wish to put before [English] the House an outline of my understanding of what occurred that day and the rationale for the official’s actions. POINTS OF ORDER On August 29, 1997 my staff offered to have senior departmental COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD officials from the Alberta region provide the member for Wild The Speaker: Colleagues, before we begin with orders of the Rose with a briefing on the initiatives being undertaken by the day, I have received notification from the hon. member for department in the Stony community. While I cannot speak to the Burnaby—Douglas. Yesterday we had an incident in the House specifics of the hon. member’s expectations, there was no promise where the word treasonous was used by a member putting a at that time to release confidential financial information of the question to a minister. At that time I asked the hon. member for band to him. The meeting was subsequently arranged for Septem- Burnaby—Douglas to withdraw his comments. At that time his ber 16, 1997. answer was no. A few days prior to the meeting Indian affairs officials learned I see that the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is in the that members of the Stony band would be attending with the hon. House this morning. Rather than have any kind of a long statement member. On the day of the meeting the departmental regional or explanation, as far as the House is concerned I have a question to office became aware that members of other bands in Alberta were put to the hon. member and it will be quite direct. also accompanying the member to the meeting. Does the hon. member wish to withdraw the word treasonous On September 16 the hon. member for Wild Rose arrived by bus which he refused to withdraw yesterday? for the meeting accompanied by two assistants and approximately 20 members from three different Alberta bands. The member Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. conducted at least one interview via telephone with the media Speaker, yes. Out of respect for the traditions of the House I do while on route to the meeting. withdraw the word treasonous. D (1005) The Speaker: I consider this matter closed. Representatives of the media also arrived at the building that * * * afternoon, apparently at the invitation of the hon. member. Despite this development the participants at the meeting were advised that PRIVILEGE they could be present for the general briefing but that DIAND officials were not at liberty to reveal to non-band members STONY RESERVE financial information confidential to the Stony band. The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose raised a question The position taken by DIAND officials was guided by restric- of privilege on September 30. At that time I heard argument not tions of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. only from the member but from other members in the House. This morning the hon. minister of Indian affairs will be making a It is acknowledged that the information sought was not requested statement, giving us further information on this question of privi- under the Access to Information Act. However, given the govern- lege. ment’s potential liability over inappropriate disclosure of confi- 368 COMMONS DEBATES October 2, 1997 Privilege dential information to third parties, the Access to Information Act entitled to the information he had sought as a representative of the is used for guidance on the informal release of information. individual band members present. The member’s assistant was advised by DIAND to submit a formal access to information request. This would allow the member to specifically state what Confidential financial information relative to the band is manda- information he required and it would enable the department to torily protected by the Access to Information Act. As such, it can obtain legal advice on a specific request for information. only be released to third parties after a consultation process. Consultations are with the chief and council or duly authorized officials of the band. Some of the information can be provided, These events appear to have led to the hon. member’s question of however, to individual members of the band, as they are entitled. privilege. I wish to submit the following points for consideration. At that point the largest contingent at the meeting, primarily First, the member for Wild Rose alleges that officials deliberate- members of the Samson band, agreed to leave the briefing and ly misled him and withheld information. The fact is there was no requested a separate meeting with DIAND officials immediately intention to deliberately mislead or withhold information. It was following the meeting with Stony band members. That request was my staff that offered the briefing and regional officials provided the granted. briefing as promised. The regional official involved did not provide information which he felt was confidential and protected under acts The hon. member for Wild Rose and one other member of of Parliament. another First Nation protested the position being taken by DIAND officials. An assistant to the hon. member then drafted a handwrit- Second, I do not believe that the official’s actions indicate a ten note at the meeting which he had signed by members of the contempt of this Parliament. The fact that he said he would not accompanying group. This note appointed the member as their release the requested information under unusual circumstances financial advisor. without first obtaining legal advice was, I believe, the prudent course of action and demonstrated no contempt for Parliament or The hon. member for Wild Rose claimed that as their financial the member’s rights as a parliamentarian. His emphasis on pru- advisor he was entitled to the same information as the band dence with respect to confidential information demonstrates his members themselves. DIAND officials were unsure of the legal respect for Parliament and the laws that it develops. implications of releasing the information under these circum- stances or the rights of a financial advisor to receive such informa- tion. As such, he advised those present that if they pursued the D (1010 ) matter legal advice would have to be sought before the meeting could continue. Third, in this question of privilege the hon. member refers to regulations governing disclosure of information. While it is not The hon. member agreed to leave the meeting to allow a clear to which regulations he is referring I wish to make the discussion of financial issues with the members of the Stony tribe. following points. The member for Wild Rose claims that the released confidential financial information is permitted if written The member for Wild Rose was not present during the discussion consent is received. The member argues that he had such consent. of financial issues which was provided to individual members of the Stony band, but he was present during the briefing by DIAND While it appears that he had the consent of a few band members, staff of the initiatives being taken to address the situation at Stony. the information being sought related to the entire band and was not These initiatives include the appointment of a third party manager specific to those members. He did not have the consent of the band. to manage the day to day operations of the Stony First Nation, the He also claims that as a member of Parliament he is entitled to initiation of a forensic audit of the band operations and the confidential information. If he is referring to the Privacy Act, establishment of a joint task force to examine the conditions on section 8.1(g) does allow that personal information can be released reserve and develop proposals to address them. to a member of Parliament ‘‘for the purpose of assisting the individual to whom the information relates in resolving a prob- After the meeting the hon. member asked if the department lem’’. Again, in this case the information requested was not could contribute to the cost of the bus which was used to bring the specific to the individuals but related to the entire band. group to the briefing. The member was advised at that point that this was not possible. My department arranged a briefing in good faith, provided the briefing and attempted to accommodate the request for information Sometime after the meeting the hon. member’s assistant con- within the law. The official involved acted prudently by not tacted the DIAND regional office. He stated that he had a conversa- revealing confidential information without seeking legal advice. I tion with an official in the office of the access to information am sure the hon.