Speaker’s Ruling – Question of Privilege – Parliamentary Association
Honourable senators, I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by Senator Patterson on Thursday, November 1. His question of privilege related to events that took place at the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, and concerns that it was not conducted in accordance with the Constitution of the Association.
A number of senators contributed to the debate, and I thank them for their interventions. The careful arguments that were presented are a testament to the importance senators place on parliamentary diplomacy, and in particular the work of our parliamentary associations.
As honourable senators know, a question of privilege arises when there is an alleged breach of the powers, rights or immunities of the Senate, a committee or a senator – what we refer to as parliamentary privilege. Rule 13-2(1) sets out four criteria, all of which must be met in order for a question of privilege to be accorded priority. As noted in previous rulings, it is not necessary to review the four criteria in a set order, since a question of privilege will only be founded when all four are met.
The first of these criteria is that the question must “be raised at the earliest opportunity”. In this case, the events in question took place on the evening of Tuesday, October 30. While Senator Patterson had attended this meeting, the events that form the substance of his question of privilege occurred after he left, believing the meeting to be adjourned. He indicated that he did not learn that the meeting had continued and a new chair had been elected until late the following morning. Senator Cordy questioned whether this was indeed raised at the earliest opportunity, indicating that she had seen media reports of the incident when she returned home following the event that evening. Senator Pratte, for his part, suggested that whether a matter is raised at the earliest opportunity should not be a matter of minutes or hours.
The inclusion of the requirement that a matter be raised at the earliest opportunity is an example of the seriousness and importance of matters of privilege. As noted in a ruling of December 10, 2013, Senate “precedents establish that even a delay of a few days can result in a question of privilege failing to meet this criterion. Attempting to exhaust alternative remedies before giving notice of a question of privilege does not exempt it from the need to meet the first criterion.” Senator Patterson, however, indicated that he only learned of the incident at the end of the morning of Wednesday. That appears to have been after the deadline for giving notice, in which case rule 13-4 specifically allows the senator some flexibility, including raising the issue at the next sitting, as Senator Patterson did. Therefore, I find that the question of privilege has satisfied the criterion of rule 13-2(1)(a).
I will now turn to the fourth criterion, that a question of privilege must, “be raised to seek a genuine remedy that the Senate has the power to provide and for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available.” The concerns that have been raised surround questions of whether the meeting was called, held and adjourned in accordance with the Constitution of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. This situation in some ways parallels a case addressed in a ruling of October 30, 2012, dealing with the adjournment of a committee meeting. The ruling stated that, “[i]n this case, the action of the committee chair in adjourning the meeting without verifying if there was other business is really one of order, and, as such, there is another reasonable parliamentary process available. The matter could be raised as a point of order in committee, where it can be dealt with more effectively.” While recognizing the fundamental differences between a parliamentary committee and an association, this ruling does provide useful guidance as to how the matter at issue could be addressed, suggesting that the procedural mechanisms available at the next meeting of the Association are more appropriate.
Furthermore, Senator Plett noted that there were different committees and associations meeting to address this matter. Specifically, the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council and our own Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration are two bodies that can undertake this work. Thus, it is clear that there are other more appropriate avenues for this matter to be addressed. Consequently, Senator Patterson’s question of privilege does not satisfy the criteria of rule 13-2(1)(d). As a question of privilege must meet all four criteria of rule 13-2(1), it is unnecessary for me to address the other two.
In closing his question of privilege, Senator Patterson sought any advice that I “might choose to give that would comment on the importance of maintaining dignity and respect for each other in undertaking our parliamentary duties and representing this great democracy in interfaces with other countries.”
As Speaker, I place high value on our roles as senators with respect to parliamentary diplomacy. In a world where lines between domestic and international policy continue to blur, groups like the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association are important avenues of diplomacy that help to maintain an open dialogue between Canada and our international counterparts. We must be mindful of how we conduct ourselves, remembering that we are being watched not just by Canadians, but by our friends around the globe. In doing so, we must set a good example. I would encourage all senators to work with our colleagues in the other place to see this matter resolved in an orderly manner.