Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 4 - Evidence - May 12, 2015
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 12, 2015
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:33 a.m. for the consideration of a report of the Subcommittee on Parliamentary Privilege.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome everyone to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. Thanks to everyone for meeting on a Tuesday morning.
I would like to welcome David Wells as a new permanent member of the committee, and Senator Black — a permanent member?
Senator Black: I'm standing in for Senator Martin this morning.
The Chair: I'm sure we can work on making it permanent if you are that interested, senator. Today we're going to continue with the consideration of the — and for argument's sake I'll call it a report — of the Subcommittee on Parliamentary Privilege. We will continue with discussions. Some people weren't here last week, and hopefully we'll get to a point of decision as to whether or not we adopt it as an interim report to allow it to be presented to the Senate. So we'll start with an open discussion. I know last week some people wanted a little bit of time to look at it, and that was granted.
I'm not sure where to start. Does anyone have any questions or concerns?
Senator Furey: I apologize for not having been here last year —
The Chair: Last week. You were here most of last year.
Senator Tkachuk: And last year, George.
Senator Furey: Last week, and I understand a number of people wanted to look at what was going on in other jurisdictions, particularly in Australia and New Zealand where it's been codified. So I thought that might be a starting point this morning.
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Joyal: On the same grounds, I think that since the Vaid decision in 2003 — the Vaid decision being the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada — it might be a good thing to be aware of whether there have been important decisions from the British court in relation to privileges, because as you know, we are limited. When I say we, I mean that the Senate and the House of Commons cannot claim larger privileges than exist in Britain at Westminster. So maybe it could be helpful to know that, so that we have an idea of the parameters within which we are operating.
The Chair: I think at this point we'll start a to-do list for our friends, in particular the clerk and Dara Lithwick. I'm looking for other Commonwealth countries and the work they've been doing on parliamentary privilege and any other decisions, if I may, Senator Joyal, that may have come from other countries as well within the Commonwealth. In fact, I think we saw a fair amount of information over the last 18 months from New Zealand.
Senator Joyal: I'm more concerned about what happens at Westminster because section 18 of the Constitution doesn't refer to other Commonwealth countries. They refer to Westminster. So Westminster, of course, is England. That's really the preoccupation I have — the most important decision at the highest court in relation to privileges.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
For the information of some who weren't here previously, both Senator Furey and I have expressed an interest to the leadership about having a Committee of the Whole in the future to have a larger dialogue about parliamentary privilege. In fact, once we are able to share this document through the Senate, I think we'll have more people at least starting to engage in it. We'll report back as to how that discussion goes with leadership.
Senator Jaffer: If I may, I came across the document by Charles Robert and Dara Lithwick on parliamentary privilege. It's a very good document, and it does set out very clearly what is happening in other countries. It also sets out the whole issue of privilege in a summary of the report. So I suggest that not only should we circulate it here, but when the Committee of the Whole happens, a summary of the report should be circulated. Members might not want to read the whole report, but certainly they would read an 18-page summary. And it really sets out a good summary.
The Chair: Okay. So I'll ask as well that the clerk share that along with the report when we adopt that in the Senate.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I started reading the report, and I have to say it's a very interesting report. I really enjoyed reading it. It's broken down into three parts: The first part deals with the history of parliamentary privilege; then the second part gives us an overview of parliamentary privilege; and finally it proposes a framework, and we are to use that framework to evaluate the various rights and immunities associated with parliamentary privilege.
As a matter of fact, I found it interesting that, for example, Part III (E) which deals with freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation, and molestation. I think last year — or was it the year before — we had an incident involving an MP that touched on that very issue.
What I find interesting in that paragraph is that it makes a distinction between the form of physical obstruction as opposed to non-physical obstruction. By physical obstruction, it deals with ticket lines, security cordons and traffic barriers — in other words, security or construction measures. With non-physical obstruction, it raises such points as damaging a member's reputation or uses of malice. In that case, as the report points out, procedures should exist and be enforced to ensure that the dignity of parliamentarians or witnesses in a committee hearing or Parliament is not undermined.
I was really taken by that paragraph. I was reading that last night. So far as I'm concerned, if I can throw in my grain of salt, I really like that report. I find it very interesting. I like history, and I think Charles reviewed the history part last week. Senator Joyal did the same as well. So I'm all for it.
The Chair: Just out of interest, I know Senator Furey has discussed, I believe in subcommittee, a case a few years ago where a witness from the RCMP, the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP was, I would argue, attacked by parliamentarians who used parliamentary privilege to protect themselves from any civil action and cost that RCMP witness their job.
I don't want to speak for you, Senator Furey, but I know that that was at the forefront of some of these discussions around what parliamentary privilege is meant to do versus what it's allowed to do.
Senator Furey: It's all part of the umbrella idea of modernizing or bringing into the 21st century this whole idea of privilege. You make a really good point there, Senator McIntyre, because security today is far different than it was 100 years ago or even 10 years ago, and we have to modernize the whole concept of parliamentary privilege with security in the 21st century. Thank you for raising it.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm a little confused at the procedure. This report is not a report to be tabled in the Senate, right? Is it a report of this committee, or why are we discussing this in the first place?
The Chair: It's a report from a subcommittee that was brought here.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand.
The Chair: If we wish to accept it is an interim report, then we could table it, which would allow us to continue work going into a new Parliament, for example, in the fall.
Senator Tkachuk: Oh, okay.
The Chair: So, ultimately, it's our decision whether we decide to accept it as an interim report of this committee. That's why we're spending as much time as we are discussing it.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes. Okay.
The Chair: That would allow us to ensure that it gains a foothold, to be fair, in this committee. Otherwise, it might not.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay. I was just a little confused. I understood that we never sort of called it a report. You had taken great pains to say that, so, therefore, I didn't know. I thought this was just sort of a working document for us to go to step two, which is to do a study of privilege.
The Chair: And it is. It is absolutely that.
Senator Tkachuk: So it's not even an interim report, then.
The Chair: We could accept it as an interim report.
Senator Tkachuk: I suppose.
Senator Furey: I understood, Senator Tkachuk, that what we would do here in committee is, as a committee, look at it and question it, and then, if we felt it appropriate, we would adopt it as an interim report on the understanding that we would have full debate in the Senate. I think both Senator White and I have approached our various leaderships, as he has said, to see whether we could get a day to do that in a Committee of the Whole.
Senator Tkachuk: So then we would do a full debate, and then we'd finish a final report. Is that the deal?
Senator Furey: That would be my understanding, yes.
The Chair: We would come back, and then do a study here on —
Senator Furey: Taking into account the comments and debate of all senators.
Senator Tkachuk: I wasn't here when this was set up, so that's why I was kind of caught in the middle of it.
The Chair: That's just bad luck.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes or good luck. I look at it as good luck.
Okay. I'm very clear now.
Senator Joyal: I think it's a very valid point and should be explained like that in the Senate. I think Senator Tkachuk raised a very important way of explaining to other senators in the Senate which step we are on. That's essentially what you are requesting.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Furey: I don't know if I'm jumping the gun here, chair, but I think it's appropriate to move the adoption of the interim report, with the understanding that further debate would be in the Senate, in Committee of the Whole. I don't know that there's much to be gained by our spending another hour amongst ourselves kicking around this report. Many people on the committee may even want to speak in Committee of the Whole and may want to talk to some of their colleagues and caucus members about it as well.
If I'm not jumping the gun, I would move the adoption of the interim report, on the understanding that we're going to have full debate on it in Committee of the Whole.
The Chair: Do we have agreement to adoption of an interim report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: If I may, I also ask that steering committee have the authority to make some minor adjustments, only because it was written as a report for this committee. We would have to change some things to call it an interim report from the committee, if that's okay as well. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any other further business? We're adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)