PDF
Derek Lee
In December 2007 the Canadian House of Commons had to deal with a matter
of Privilege involving its power to send for persons, papers and records.
The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy & Ethics was studying
a question of ethics following public reports that a former member /Prime
Minister had received large cash payments from an individual at the end
of the Member's mandate about 15 years ago. The Committee sought the attendance
at public meetings of both that former Member and the cash donor, Karlheinz
Schreiber and following passage of appropriate motions, the committee Clerk
sent invitations and served orders to attend (styled as a summons). Both
parties (after discussions through counsel and agents) indicated they would
attend. But the fact that Mr. Schreiber was then actually in custody at
a provincial facility under a federal judicial extradition order appeared
to raise complications in arranging his attendance. It was also believed
his removal to an overseas state and outside the jurisdiction of the Committee
was imminent. This article raises some concerns about possible unintended
consequences of the process that was used in the Schreiber case.
The power to Send for Persons, papers and Records (similar to a power of
subpoena in civil procedure) is one of Parliament's undoubted privileges
and is reconfirmed in each new Parliament during the Throne Speech proceedings.
Its roots are centuries old1 but like so much of the British common law
and Parliamentary heritage, the procedure has not been codified. In the
Canadian House of Commons, that full power without any reservation (unless
the House order otherwise) been given under Standing Order 108 to each
of the standing committees. However, in most of their work, there is no
need to use the formal persons, papers and records power since most committee
witness appearances are by request and invitation. The House itself rarely
uses that power. So it might be observed that a power of that scope, which
is not codified, and rarely used, could easily be the subject of some misunderstanding.
The Committee was under several real time constraints, including the probable
removal of Karlheinz Schreiber under the extradition process, where custodial
authorities, 400 kilometers away in Toronto felt bound by the judicial
order and were genuinely unfamiliar with the weight and priority of the
Committee Parliamentary order. It was in this complex circumstance that
the committee decided to seek the help of a Speaker's warrant in an attempt
to pre-empt some of the uncertainty. To do this, the Committee reported
its request to the House and the House concurred in that report, thus enabling
the Speaker to prepare and send that document to affected parties. A Speaker's
warrant is best seen as a facilitating document, reflecting the will
of the House and the Speaker on its behalf, and directed to parties implicated
in the process. In marshalling the authority of the House in support of
the committee's order, the legally complex questions did clarify themselves
(helped in some measure by the apparent willingness of Mr. Schreiber to
attend) and the witness (still in custody and subject to the extradition
process) properly attended as required.
This course of action chosen by the Committee (resort to the use of the
Speaker's warrant) possibly raises a real underlying concern, so far unaddressed
on the public record. Although that warrant was sought to buttress the
earlier Committee order in the face of jurisdictional complexity, its use
may raise two large unintended complications.
First, the request for and use of the warrant may have resulted in a public
perception that the Committee order on its own was weak, ineffective or
incapable of execution. Any acceptance of this perception in Parliament
or more broadly raises concerns about respect for future Committee persons,
papers and records orders. Remember that this power is fully delegated
by the House to the Committee so that a persons, papers and records order
from a Committee has the same legal weight as a similar order from the
House. And because the persons, papers and records procedure is not
codified, even one misuse or mistake could become a precedent on which
future Houses or the public rely2. Should the Committee's decision be
taken and used out of context, it could arguably undermine perceptions
of the authority and weight of all future Committee persons, papers and
records orders.
Secondly, the Committee's quick resort to the House to seek the Speaker's
warrant occurred in the environment of a minority parliament. Opposition
members held a majority of seats, both on the committee and in the House,
and working together, those parties were able to overcome possible resistance
by Government members and quickly produced a House Order authorizing the
Speaker to act with a warrant. It is far from clear that a government-controlled
House would have cooperated and responded so quickly in this case and concurred
in this committee request. In summary, Speaker's warrants will not always
be so readily attainable and should not therefore be seen as a routine
component of a Committee persons, papers and records order.
It might be useful to note that in the event a witness refused to attend
on the order of the House or of a Committee, that refusal would likely
be a contempt, and in both cases, the refusal and contempt would have to
be taken to the floor of the House for enforcement procedures. Enforcement
of House and Committee orders (contempt, arrest etc.) remain the authority
of the House and have not been delegated to Standing Committees.
While it is clear that the body of parliamentary privileges under our Constitution
cannot be diminished unless explicitly altered by the House, it is also
probably true that a House could over time, by precedent, diminish the
scope and usage of the privileges. So in that sense, the health of future
Parliamentary processes may depend on the health of our own Parliament.
The Standing Committee on Access to Information Privacy and Ethics in
the above example, acted properly and within the rules and accorded respect
to the witnesses and properly served public and Parliamentary interests.
But the decision to seek the assistance of the Speaker in the case of the
witness Karlheinz Schreiber should not be seen as undermining the fully
valid authority of its own original persons, papers and records order
but rather as helping to clarify the complexity of the dual jurisdiction
custody and time constraints present in that instance.
Notes
1. That the privileges of the House involved in the inquiry before the
Court were indisputable, because, 1st, That House, which forms the Great
Inquest of the nation, has a power to institute inquiries, and to order
the attendance of witnesses, and in case of disobedience
. Bring them in
custody to the Bar for the purpose of examination; and 2nd, If there be
a charge of contempt and breach of privilege, and an order for the person
charged to attend and answer it, and a willful disobedience of that order,
the House has undoubtedly the power to cause the person charged to be taken
into custody, and to be brought to the Bar to answer the charge; and further,
the House, and that alone, is the proper judge when these powers, or either
of them, are to be exercised. Gosset v. Howard (1847)(Court of the Exchequer)
10 Q.B. 411, at 451.
2. One recalls the case, where a Member of the Canadian House was stood
at the bar in 1992 and admonished for grabbing at the Mace at the end
of a sitting. However, parliamentary precedent clearly showed that Members
are required to stand in their own place for discipline procedures, and
only members of the public stand at the bar. Given the rarity of such
events, the question is whether this incorrect procedure will become a
precedent for future Member discipline in Canada's House. (See Debates
Oct 31, 1991, p.4309).
|