1st Session, 41st Parliament

Issue 178 - Appendix

Thursday, June 20, 2013
1:30 p.m.

The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

Thursday, June 20, 2013

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to present its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred a case of privilege respecting the appearance of a witness before a committee, has, in obedience to its order of reference of May 8, 2013, examined the said case of privilege and now reports as follows:

The rights of Parliament to perform its constitutionally-mandated role are well-entrenched in our Westminster parliamentary system. These rights assure the independence of parliamentarians to enable their constitutional functions. They result from the centuries old struggle of the English House of Commons in the assertion of its independence and the establishment of its distinct role within Parliament.

In Canada, these rights attained constitutional status when they were entrenched in the preamble and in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Under the Constitution, Parliament exercises the full extent of parliamentary rights and immunities enjoyed by the UK House of Commons at the time of Confederation as well as additional rights and immunities that are necessary to its constitutional functions.

The historic rights that Parliament relies on to conduct its business and fulfil its constitutional role have continued to evolve in response to modern realities. It is imperative for Parliament to have a dialogue with the public, to hear a diversity of views, opinions and perspectives on any item of business before Parliament. This enriches Parliament's work and makes it relevant to Canadians. For this reason, Parliament must be vigilant in preserving its ability to conduct its business and to have access to the views of its fellow citizens.

In addition, the right to appear before parliamentary committees is an individual right for Canadians, a means by which they can participate in the deliberations of Parliament. Witnesses coming to Parliament are protected by privilege when they participate in a proceeding in Parliament such as a committee hearing, inquiry or other study. Witnesses are afforded parliamentary protection because it is essential that, like parliamentarians, they are able to speak freely without fear that they will be held liable for any statements they make.

Among the rights Parliament possesses are:

• The right to conduct its business, whether in the chamber or in committees, without any encroachment on that right;

• The right to call any witness on any matter of business that the Parliament considers relevant; and

• The right to determine for itself whether its rights have been encroached upon.

Equally important, Parliament has a corresponding duty to preserve and protect these fundamental rights.

The Senate on motion, referred a case of privilege to the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (Committee) on 8 May 2013 following the Speaker`s ruling that a prima facie case had been established. The basic facts are that a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Corporal Beaulieu, was invited to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (SECD), as a representative of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada (MPPAC). In the end, Cpl. Beaulieu did not appear as his immediate supervisor, acting in accordance with long-standing RCMP policy, declined to give him permission to travel while off-duty sick.

In its consideration of this case of privilege, the Committee met on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 and Wednesday, 5 June 2013 to hear evidence. The Committee heard from the following witnesses:

• Corporal (Cpl.) Roland Beaulieu, member of the National Executive of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, as an individual;

• Staff Sergeant (S/Sgt.) George Reid, Protective Services Section, ``E'' Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

• Chief Superintendent (C/Supt.) Kevin deBruyckere, Deputy Criminal Operations, Federal Policing, ``E'' Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

• Dr. Isabelle Fieschi, Chief, Health Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and

• Assistant Commissioner (A/Commr.) Gilles Moreau, Director General, HR Transformation, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The Committee received copies of relevant email communications from the RCMP relating to Cpl. Beaulieu. The RCMP also provided sections of its Administration Manual pertaining to sick leave and travel.

Cpl. Beaulieu testified that he felt intimidated by the actions of his supervisor and did not attend the SECD meeting. The evidence of S/Sgt. Reid was that Cpl. Beaulieu was not given permission to attend. As a result, Parliament's right to hear from a Canadian citizen was encroached upon when he was refused permission to attend.

Parliament has the absolute and unfettered right to call witnesses to appear before it and before its committees. This right has been encroached upon with the result that the SECD lost its right to hear a witness of its choosing.

However, this Committee finds, despite this encroachment, that the work of the SECD was not unduly impeded. A colleague of Cpl. Beaulieu, the President of the MPPAC, was available to speak to the SECD. In addition, during this Committee`s inquiry into the case of privilege, no impediment was placed on Cpl. Beaulieu that prevented him from testifying before this Committee as it examined this case of privilege.

The Committee sees no reason to pursue the matter further and certainly no reason to give consideration to a sanction or a censure.

In coming to this conclusion as to an appropriate response to this encroachment on the rights of Parliament, the Committee notes that the RCMP have shown in both their testimony and by their actions before our Committee that this matter has been rectified for future requests from Parliament.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID SMITH

Chair