7/29/2019 Ruling on point of privilege raised by Senator Cools

1/4

1

SPEAKERS RULING

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE --PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET

OFFICER

Honourable senators, I am ready to ruleon the question of privilege raised by SenatorCools on February 26. The basic concern

relates to actions of the ParliamentaryBudget Officer, an officer of the Library ofParliament, that may have brought disreputeon Parliament and undermined the control ofthe houses over the administration of

parliamentary affairs. In particular, theParliamentary Budget Officer has applied tothe Federal Court asking it to define hismandate as part of an on-going disagreementwith the executive that he has recently raisedat an international conference. The

importance of this issue is reflected by thefact that consideration of the question of

privilege was, exceptionally, spread over twodays, with Senators Carignan, Comeau,Fraser, Mitchell and Tardif all taking part,along with Senator Cools.

Before dealing with the specifics of theissue, it would be helpful to review how the

process for dealing with questions ofprivilege works. The Speakers role at thisinitial stage is limited to determiningwhether there is a prima facie case of

privilege, that is to say whether a reasonableperson could conclude that there may havebeen a violation of privilege. This rulingdoes not deal with the substance of the case.If a prima facie case of privilege isestablished, the senator who raised the matter

can, under rule 13-7(1), move a motion,which is subject to debate and can be

DCISION DU PRSIDENT

QUESTION DE PRIVILGEDIRECTEUR PARLEMENTAIRE DU

BUDGET

Honorables snateurs, je suis prt meprononcer sur la question de privilgesouleve par le snateur Cools le 26 fvrier.

Le snateur craignait essentiellement que,par ses actions, le directeur parlementaire dubudget, un membre du personnel de laBibliothque du Parlement, ait pu nuire larputation du Parlement et au contrle exerc

par les deux chambres sur la gestion desaffaires parlementaires. Dans les faits, ledirecteur parlementaire du budget sestadress la Cour fdrale pour lui demanderde dfinir son mandat tant donn lediffrend qui loppose au pouvoir excutif,

dont il a parl rcemment une confrenceinternationale. Que ltude de cette question

de privilge se soit exceptionnellementtendue sur deux jours, avec desinterventions des snateurs Carignan,Comeau, Fraser, Mitchell et Tardif, de mmeque le snateur Cools, dmontrelimportance de ce point.

Avant daller plus loin, il serait utile derevoir la faon de traiter les questions de

privilge. cette premire tape, le rle duPrsident se limite dterminer si la questionde privilge est fonde premire vue,cest--dire si une personne pourraitraisonnablement conclure quil y a eu

atteinte au privilge. Il nest pas question,

ici, de juger du fond de laffaire. Sil est

tabli que la question de privilge est fonde premire vue, le snateur qui la souleve

peut, conformment larticle 13-7(1) du

Rglement, prsenter une motion, qui seradbattue et pourra tre modifie.

7/29/2019 Ruling on point of privilege raised by Senator Cools

2/4

2

amended.

In conducting the initial review theSpeaker is guided by the four criteria set outin rule 13-3(1), all of which must be met for

a prima facie case of privilege to beestablished. I shall now review each of thecriteria to see how they relate to this questionof privilege.

The first criterion is that the question beraised at the earliest opportunity. Theinternational meeting at which theParliamentary Budget Officer apparently

made remarks that are the subject of thisquestion of privilege was only reported lastweek in the Ottawa Citizen, and Tuesday,February 26 was the first day the Senate satafter that press coverage. Senator Coolstherefore raised her question at the earliestopportunity. I also accept Senator Cools

position that when matters escalate, it isnecessary and legitimate to look back at thewhole picture. As such, I am satisfied thatthe first criterion has been met.

The second and third criteria can beconsidered together. They are that the matterdirectly concerns the privileges of theSenate, any of its committees or anySenator and that it be raised to correct a

grave and serious breach.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer servesin the Library of Parliament, which is underthe direct control of the ParliamentaryLibrarian, reporting to the two Speakers,who are assisted by the Standing JointCommittee on the Library of Parliament. Assuch, the Parliamentary Budget Officeroperates under the authority of the twohouses and must act within the framework ofthis organizational structure. In fact, the

Senate already took this position on June 16,2009, when it adopted a report of the joint

Dans son examen initial de la situation,le Prsident se base sur les quatre critresnoncs l'article 13-3(1) du Rglement,

critres qui doivent tous tre satisfaits pourquil soit tabli que la question de privilge

est fonde premire vue. Je passeraimaintenant en revue chacun de ces critres

pour voir leur lien avec cette question deprivilge.

Premier critre : la question de privilgedoit tre souleve la premire occasion. Larencontre internationale au cours de laquellele directeur parlementaire du budget aurait

fait les observations qui ont donn lieu cette question de privilge a fait lobjet dunarticle du Ottawa Citizen la semaine dernireseulement, et mardi le 26 fvrier tait le

premier jour de sance du Snat aprs laparution de cet article. Le snateur Cools adonc soulev sa question de privilge la

premire occasion. Je reconnais galement,comme la fait valoir le snateur Cools, que,

lorsquune situation prend de lampleur, il

est ncessaire et lgitime de vouloir en avoirune vue densemble. Je considre donc que

le premier critre a t respect.

Les deuxime et troisime critrespeuvent tre examins ensemble. Selon cescritres, la question de privilge doit serapporter directement aux privilges duSnat, dun de ses comits ou dun

snateur et viser corriger une atteintegrave et srieuse .

Le directeur parlementaire du budgettravaille au sein de la Bibliothque duParlement, laquelle est contrle directement

par le bibliothcaire parlementaire, quirelve des deux Prsidents, soutenus par leComit mixte permanent de la Bibliothquedu Parlement. Le directeur parlementaire du

budget relve donc de lautorit des deux

chambres et doit agir lintrieur de cette

structure hirarchique. En fait, cest ce que le

Snat a fait valoir le 16 juin 2009 lorsquil aadopt un rapport du comit mixte portant

7/29/2019 Ruling on point of privilege raised by Senator Cools

3/4

3

committee dealing with the mandate of theParliamentary Budget Officer. Among otherthings, the report recommended that theofficer should respect the provisions ofthe [Parliament of Canada Act] establishing

his position within the Library ofParliament.

By asking the courts to decide thequestion of his mandate, the ParliamentaryBudget Officer has disregarded theestablished authority and organizationalstructure of which he is a part. The questionof his mandate is solely for Parliament todetermine. The officers actions run contraryto the constitutional separation of powers

between the branches of government. As aconsequence, both the second and thirdcriteria have been fulfilled.

The final criterion is that a question ofprivilege be raised to seek a genuine

remedy that the Senate has the power toprovide and for which no otherparliamentary process is reasonablyavailable. Senator Cools has indicated thatshe is ready to move a motion. This criterionhas, therefore, also been met.

Before concluding, one other point,identified by Senator Fraser, should beaddressed. The senator was concerned aboutdealing with a matter that is before the court,in effect raising the sub judice convention.As noted at pages 627 and 628 of the secondedition ofHouse of Commons Procedure and

Practice, Thesub judice convention is firstand foremost a voluntary exercise of restrainton the part of the House to protect anaccused person, or other party to a courtaction or judicial inquiry, from any

prejudicial effect of public discussion of theissue. Secondly, the convention also exists to maintain a separation and mutualrespect between legislative and judicial

branches of government. Thus, theconstitutional independence of the judiciary

is recognized. Quite importantly, the textthen goes on to note that the sub judice

sur le mandat du directeur parlementaire dubudget. Dans ce rapport, on recommandaitnotamment que le directeur parlementaire du

budget respecte les dispositions [de la Loisur le Parlement du Canada] qui cre son

poste au sein de la Bibliothque duParlement .

En demandant aux tribunaux de seprononcer sur son mandat, le directeurparlementaire du budget a fait fi des pouvoirstablis et de la structure hirarchique dont ilfait partie. Il revient uniquement auParlement de se prononcer sur son mandat.Les actions du directeur parlementaire du

budget vont lencontre de la sparation des

pouvoirs entre les diffrents organes dugouvernement prvue par la Constitution.Par consquent, les deuxime et troisimecritres ont t respects.

Selon le dernier critre, la question deprivilge doit chercher obtenir unerparation que le Snat est habilit accorderet qui ne peut vraisemblablement treobtenue par aucune autre procdure

parlementaire . Le snateur Cools sest diteprte prsenter une motion. Ce critre adonc t respect.

Avant de terminer, il faudrait traiterdunautre point, mentionn par le snateur Fraser.Le snateur demandait sil convenait

dvoquer une affaire dont un tribunal est

saisi, ce qui fait intervenir la conventionrelative aux affaires en instance. Comme on

peut le lire aux pages 627 et 628 de la

deuxime dition de louvrage La procdureet les usages de la Chambre des communes : La convention relative aux affaires eninstance est avant tout un exercice derestriction que la Chambre simpose

volontairement pour protger un accus ouune autre partie des poursuites en justice ou une enqute judiciaire de tout effet

prjudiciable dcoulant dune discussion

publique de la question. La convention existegalement () pourmaintenir la sparation

et la bonne entente entre le lgislatif et lejudiciaire. Ainsi, la Chambre reconnat

7/29/2019 Ruling on point of privilege raised by Senator Cools

4/4

4

convention has never stood in the way of theHouse considering a prima facie matter of

privilege vital to the public interest or to theeffective operation of the House and itsMembers. The sub judice convention does

not, therefore, prevent the Senate fromdealing with this matter.

A prima facie case of privilege has beenestablished. The role of the Speaker, asidentified at citation 117(2) of the sixthedition of Beauchesne, is limited todeciding the formal question, whether thecase conforms with the conditions whichalone entitle it to take precedence anddoes not extend to deciding the question ofsubstancewhether a breach of privilege hasin fact been committed a question whichcan only be decided by the House itself.

Under rule 13-7(1), Senator Cools nowhas the opportunity to move a motion eithercalling on the Senate to take some action orreferring the case of privilege to the RulesCommittee. The motion must be moved atthis time, although it will only be taken intoconsideration at the end of Orders of the Dayor 8 p.m., whichever comes first. Debate onthe motion can last no more than three hours,with each senator limited to speaking once,and for no more than 15 minutes. This debatecan be adjourned, and when it concludes the

Senate will decide on the motion. The finaldecision is for the Senate to make.

The ruling is that aprima facie case ofprivilege has been established.

lindpendance constitutionnelle du pouvoir

judiciaire. On peut lire ensuite, et cest trsimportant, que la convention relative auxaffaires en instance na jamais empch la

Chambre dtudier une affaire en instance

vue comme une question de privilge fondede prime abord et considre vitale pour lepays ou pour la bonne marche de la Chambreet ses membres. Par consquent, laconvention relative aux affaires en instancenempche pas le Snat de se pencher sur laquestion.

La question de privilge est fonde, premire vue. Comme on peut le lire aucommentaire 117(2) de la sixime dition du

Beauchesne, le rle du Prsident se born[e] dterminer si laffaire dont il [est] saisi

[rpond] aux conditions prescrites et [peut]avoir priorit (). Il ne lui appartient pas de

statuer sur le fond, autrement dit de juger sil

y a eu ou non atteinte au privilge. Seule laChambre est comptente cet gard.

Conformment larticle 13-7(1) duRglement, le snateur Cools a maintenant la

possibilit de prsenter une motiondemandant au Snat de prendre des mesuresou de renvoyer le cas de privilge au Comitdu Rglement. La motion doit tre prsentemaintenant, mme si elle sera prise enconsidration seulement lorsque le Snataura puis lordre du jour de la sance ou

20 heures, selon la premire ventualit. Ledbat sur cette motion ne pourra durer plusde trois heures, chaque snateur pouvant

parler une fois, pendant au plus 15 minutes.Le dbat pourra tre ajourn et, lorsquil aurapris fin, le Snat se prononcera sur la motion.La dcision finale revient au Snat.

La dcision est que la question deprivilge est fonde premire vue.