Speaker of the Senate
Speaker's Ruling – Question of Privilege – Release of Report of the Auditor General
Honourable senators,
I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette on December 8, 2015. The senator’s complaint dealt with alleged leaks of information from the report of the Auditor General on senators’ expenses before it was tabled in this place. Senator Hervieux-Payette initially raised the issue on June 9, 2015, as a question of privilege, which was found to have prima facie merit. The issue was then referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for study. However, the committee did not present a report on the matter prior to the dissolution of the 41st Parliament.
It is not unprecedented to have a question of privilege brought back from a previous session, and, in keeping with practice in such cases,
I have reviewed all the arguments that were raised on this issue.
As senators know, the report tabled on June 9, 2015 was the result of an audit undertaken at the request of the Senate, and there was every expectation that the report would be provided to the Speaker and tabled in the Senate before being made public. It was, therefore,
in many ways analogous to a committee report – the Senate should be the first to receive the results of the work it requests.
The leaks that started the first week of June 2015, of which we are all aware, violated the confidential framework within which the audit was undertaken. Let me also note that the leaks put a number of senators in an extremely awkward situation, facing questions about details of a document that was not yet before the Senate and not yet public. That was not right.
To be treated under the special provisions of Chapter 13 of the Rules, a question of privilege must meet the four criteria outlined in
rule 13-2(1).
First, it must “be raised at the earliest opportunity.” As I stated in my ruling on a point of order on December 8, 2015, our rules and practices do not provide for the automatic revival of questions of privilege in a subsequent session. The matter must be raised again in the new session. The first two sitting days of the 42nd Parliament, December 3rd and 4th, were devoted to the traditional ceremonies and procedures related to the opening of a new Parliament. As such, Senator Hervieux-Payette followed the process correctly, as it stands now, and acted as expeditiously as possible.
Let me again note, however, that, if honourable senators believe that there could be a better, more efficient process for dealing with outstanding questions of privilege, it is within the powers of this body to develop some other mechanism. This could perhaps be through a recommendation from the Rules committee. Any possible changes are in the hands of honourable senators.
The second criterion is that the question of privilege must “be a matter that directly concerns the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator.” As already explained, the audit was undertaken at the request of the Senate, and there was every expectation that the Senate would be the first to receive the resulting report. It should also be noted that the leaks were of a report dealing with sensitive information related to individual senators. Just as the Senate considers the leak of committee reports to be a serious matter, the leak of this audit report, I believe, satisfies the second criterion.
Third, the question of privilege must “be raised to correct a grave and serious breach.” The answer in this case flows from that given to the second question. The Senate should have received the audit report first, and so this third criterion has been met.
Finally, the 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.” Senator Hervieux-Payette has indicated that she is prepared to move an appropriate motion, and, given the serious impact of such a leak, that is a reasonable approach.
At this stage of the process the Speaker determines whether the question of privilege seems, at first appearance, to have a reasonable basis. This gives the senator who raised the matter the chance to move a motion, on which the Senate itself will make a decision.
On June 5, 2015, towards the end of the last Parliament, it was determined that a prima facie case of privilege had been established in relation to the leaks of the report in question. It is my opinion that, for the reasons outlined here, there is a reasonable concern that the leaks surrounding the release of the audit report may have breached the privileges and rights of the Senate as an institution and those of individual senators. Consequently, I have reached the same determination that was reached last June. A prima faciequestion of privilege has been established, and, pursuant to rule 13-6(1), Senator Hervieux-Payette can move her motion at this time. Debate will, however, only begin at the earlier of 8 p.m. or the end of the Orders of the Day.