CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 138 Ï NUMBER 059 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, February 13, 2003 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 3505 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, February 13, 2003 The House met at 10 a.m. had some merit in that I did schedule a news conference for Monday, February 10, where I planned to speak about some of the issues Prayers surrounding the Groupaction affair. Some of those issues were in the National Post already. When it was brought to my attention that holding a news conference to talk about those topics would in fact be Ï (1005) crossing that line the news conference was cancelled. It never took [English] place. I do not believe that anything that I have done or said subsequent to that day in any way breaches parliamentary privilege. PRIVILEGE I am glad to have this opportunity to express my opinion and clear STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS that up. I believe the issue is more a matter of the concentration of Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on ownership in the media, where when one newspaper gets a story its a question of privilege. I am thankful for this opportunity to add fellow newspapers in that chain often comment on the same thing. some points on a matter that was raised as a question of privilege by Someone leaked that draft report and I share the concern of the chair the chair of the public accounts committee on Monday, February 10. of the public accounts committee that it was wrong. That person was not me. With that, I thank the House for its time. At that time allegations were made that I may have committed a The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for breach of privilege as a member of Parliament or be in contempt of his clarification of the events that we heard about on Monday at Parliament for releasing information regarding a draft report being some length. The Chair took the matter under advisement then. It is dealt with by the public accounts committee on the subject of the still under advisement and I will get back to the House in due course. Groupaction sponsorship scandals. Ï (1010) I should point out that this allegation has more to do with my [Translation] position as the critic of the official opposition than it does any breach of privilege as a member of Parliament in the House. SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE NON-MEDICAL USE OF DRUGS—SPEAKER'S RULING. I will point out that clearly someone did release information about The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of the draft report being dealt with by the public accounts committee privilege raised by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve because on January 31 the National Post wrote quite a comprehen- on December 12, 2002, concerning the premature disclosure of the sive article about the contents of this draft report in great detail. We report of the Special committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. believe that someone did release a copy of that draft report to the National Post. I want to say categorically here and now, that person I should explain that the unusual delay in returning to the House in was not me. this case is due to the adjournment and is a result of the Chair waiting to give an opportunity to all members involved to intervene Further, information that was written in the National Post was on the question. picked up by other subsequent newspapers. I would argue that once it was printed in the National Post it became part of the public I would like to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga— domain. Other newspapers that were in fact part of the same media Maisonneuve for having raised this matter as well as the hon. chain and own the National Post started to use information that was member for Brossard—La Prairie, the hon. opposition House leader, printed first in the National Post. I did not believe that any the hon. member for Langley-Abbotsford and the hon. member for comments made by me about the article in the National Post Laval East for their contributions. breached parliamentary privilege. The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve claimed that I am very aware of the rules of the House of Commons. Every day newspaper reports published prior to the tabling of the Special that I take my seat in the House of Commons I am very aware of the Committee’s final report on December 12, 2002, revealed premature honour that is mine to be a member of Parliament and I would never disclosure of parts of the report dealing with the committee’s knowingly contravene the rules of the House of Commons. recommendations related to the decriminalization of marijuana. He alleged that the premature release of information could be traced to Having said that, I would like to add that one of the points raised the hon. members for Laval East and the hon. member for Langley— by the chair of the public accounts committee in his criticism of me Abbotsford. 3506 COMMONS DEBATES February 13, 2003 Speaker's Ruling As the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve rightly noted, hon. members will share my disappointment and frustration at such this is contrary to our practices and is a breach of the privileges of an occurrence the House and of all members and, as he went on to point out, past [English] Speakers’ rulings have consistently indicated the need to include the source of the leak in raising any charge of this nature. However, with respect to the charges levelled against the hon. [English] members for Laval East and Langley—Abbotsford, the situation is somewhat different. In addition to the general interest in the subject House of Commons Procedure and Practice sets this out clearly of how marijuana is to be treated, there enters the further on pages 884 to 885: complicating factor that on December 10, 2002, the hon. Minister Speakers have ruled that questions of privilege concerning leaked reports will not of Justice made statements concerning the government's position be considered unless a specific charge is made against an individual, organization or with respect to decriminalization. group, and that the charge must be levelled not only against those outside the House who have made in camera material public, but must also identify the source of the I would further point out that there are many similarities between leak within the House itself. the views expressed by the minister and those contained in the The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford acknowledged that he committee's report. had discussed the topic of decriminalization in the media, but [Translation] contended that he had not done so in the context of the special committee's report. He stated that the topic of decriminalization is My examination of the press reports shows that several members one that has generated considerable public interest in recent months made comments concerning decriminalization of marijuana. None of and that his remarks were directed at the position of the government these remarks actually quoted in the media constitutes a direct made public by the Minister of Justice. disclosure of the contents of the committee’s report, nor do any of [Translation] the stories allege that a member of the committee provided the information they contain The hon. opposition House leader, citing House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 128-9, argued that our practice has I am therefore not inclined to accept that these press reports can be clearly been to have such questions dealt with first by the committee accepted as prima facie evidence of the involvement of the hon. concerned so that the House is seized with the question of a leak members for Laval East and Langley—Abbotsford in the premature only upon receiving a report from a committee raising that issue. disclosure of the Committee’s report. [English] [English] I will deal with his latter point first. While it is true that At the same time, as I have said, it appears that at least parts of the committees are masters of their own proceedings and have primary report were provided to the media prior to its tabling in the House. I responsibility for dealing with their own questions of order, the would urge all hon. members to remember their responsibilities in situation is somewhat more complicated for a special committee. this regard to their colleagues and to the House. While a special committee, like any other committee of this House, should deal with procedural matters as they arise, it is unable to take FIREARMS REGISTRY — SPEAKER'S RULING the initiative in this regard once it has presented its final report. The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of House of Commons Procedure and Practice makes this quite clear privilege raised by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville on at page 812, “Special committees cease to exist with the presentation February 5, 2003, concerning the reports tabled by the hon. Minister of their final report”. of Justice on Monday, February 3. Ï (1015) I would like to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for [Translation] raising the issue, as well as the hon. government House leader and the hon. members for Vancouver East, St.