Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: Member alleged to have deliberately misled the House; prima facie

March 3, 2014

Debates, pp. 3430–1

On February 25, 2014, Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) rose on a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville). He alleged that, on February 6, Mr. Butt knowingly made misleading statements in the House, when during debate on Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, he stated that he witnessed people picking up discarded voter cards from community mailboxes and distributing them to other people. On February 24 and 25, Mr. Butt had risen on points of order to correct and withdraw his statements, stating that he had, in fact, not witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand. He also apologized for his inaccurate statements and added that he had not intented to mislead the House.^[1] These statements, contended Mr. Cullen, proved that the conditions required to find that the House had been misled were met. After other Members made comments, Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued that although Mr. Butt had misspoken on February 6, his coming forward to correct the record should close the matter and not be seen as a contempt of the House. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On March 3, 2014, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that, while he was willing to accept that it had not been the intention of Mr. Butt to mislead the House, Members bear a responsibility to ensure their statements contain no inaccuracies. Highlighting that Members must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties, the Speaker noted that the House was seized of two contradictory statements and, thus, the situation merited further consideration by a committee to clarify the matter. Accordingly, he invited Mr. Cullen to move his motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker:  I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 25, 2014, by the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding statements made in the House by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

I would like to thank the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House and the hon. Members for Winnipeg North and Kingston and the Islands for their comments.

I also want to acknowledge the statements made by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

In raising this matter, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition claimed that the hon. Member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House on February 6, 2014, during debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand. He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 24 and 25, where he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed. In his view, this was not a simple case of someone misspeaking; he argued rather that it was a case where the Member deliberately chose to take something he knew not to be true and present it as eyewitness evidence—something so egregious, it constituted contempt.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House noted that the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville had fulfilled his obligation to correct the record so that no inaccuracies persisted. He suggested that in and of itself this should be sufficient to “...rebut any concern that there has been a contempt”.

This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All Members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten.

In calling on the Chair to arrive at a finding of prima facie in this case, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition cited my ruling of May 7, 2012, where at page 7650 of the Debates, I reminded the House that, before finding that a Member had deliberately misled the House, three conditions had to be met:

...one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the house.

Arguing all three of these conditions had been met, he concluded that a breach of privilege had occurred.

It was with these criteria in mind that I undertook a thorough review of all relevant statements made in the House on this matter, focusing particularly, of course, on the statements made by the hon. [Member] for Mississauga—Streetsville.

Originally, on February 6, he stated:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

Later that day, he added, “I will relate...something I have actually seen.”

It was only on February 24 that he rose to state:

...on February 6...I made a statement...that is not accurate. I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed...[fraudulent activity]...and want the record to properly show that.

On February 25, he returned to the House, characterized his February 6 statement as “an error on my part” and apologized “to all Canadians and to all Members of the House”, adding that, “It was never my intention, in any way, to mislead the House”. The Chair takes due note that the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville has admitted that his February 6 statement was not true and that he has apologized for his mistake.

As was noted by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, we all recognize that there is an enduring practice here of giving Members the benefit of the doubt when the accuracy of their statements is challenged. It is often the case that questions of privilege raised on such matters are found to be disputes as to facts rather than prima facie questions of privilege, primarily due to the high threshold of evidence that the House expects.

Speaker Parent stated on page 9247 of Debates on October  9, 2000:

Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead Members.

From what the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville and other Members have revealed, it is quite clear that the House has been provided with two narratives that are contradictory statements. At the same time, the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated that he had no intention of misleading the House.

Speaker Milliken was faced with a similar set of circumstances in February 2002 when the then Minister of National Defence, Art Eggleton, provided contradictory information to the House. In ruling on a question of privilege raised about the contradiction, Speaker Milliken stated on February 1, at page 8581 of Debates:

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the Minister’s assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House.

In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave Members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

I therefore invite the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition to move the traditional motion at this time.

Postscript

Mr. Cullen moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. On March 4, 2014, The Government House Leader moved that the debate be not further adjourned. The closure motion was adopted and, after debate, the privilege motion was defeated.^[3]