Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: Minister alleged to have deliberately misled the House

April 29, 2015

Debates, pp. 13197–8

On April 2, 2015, Jack Harris (St. John’s East) rose on a question of privilege to allege that Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism) had provided misleading information to the House regarding the Canadian military engagement in Iraq and Syria, which may have had an impact on how Members voted on extending the contribution of Canadian military assets in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The Minister responded that the information he provided to the House regarding the military engagement in Iraq had been provided by the department and that he believed his statements to be accurate at the time. After he received new information from officials, he explained that he had risen in the House to correct the record and to table a letter from the Chief of the Defence Staff containing the new information. He confirmed that at no time had he intended to deliberately mislead the House. After other Members made comments, the Acting Speaker (Barry Devolin) took the matter under advisement. ^[1]

Resolution

On April 29, 2015, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He explained that, while inaccurate information was provided, neither the Minister nor officials purposely misled the House nor was there any intent to falsify information. He also confirmed that the conventions of the House dictate that the Chair must take all Members at their word. The Speaker stated that, as there was no clear evidence that would lead him to conclude that the necessary conditions concerning misleading statements had been met, nor could he conclude that the Member was somehow impeded in the performance of his parliamentary duties, he could not find that there was a prima facie question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker:  Before we continue with routine proceedings, I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 2, by the hon. Member for St. John’s East about alleged misleading information provided to the House by the Minister of National Defence prior to the House’s decision regarding the expansion and extension of the Canadian military engagement in Iraq and now in Syria.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for St. John’s East for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Minister of National Defence, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the Members for Winnipeg North and Vancouver Quadra for their comments.

In raising this question of privilege, the Member for St. John’s East explained that on Monday, March 30, 2015, the Minister of National Defence told the House that Canada was the only coalition partner, other than the United States, currently engaged in Syria using precision-guided munitions to strike targets dynamically. He acknowledged that the Minister later admitted that that information was erroneous, that in fact every state currently engaged in air strikes in Syria is using precision-guided munitions. The Member for St. John’s East spoke to the Minister’s sacred duty to ensure the accuracy of statements, particularly when it informs Members’ decisions on such critical issues as whether or not to send Canadians off to war. He contended that the Minister’s misleading statements constituted a serious breach of privilege.

The Minister of National Defence confirmed that he had indeed provided the House with information from military officials that, at the time, he believed to be true, but that ultimately proved to be inaccurate. Accepting ministerial responsibility, he expressed his regret for conveying false information, even though he did not know it to be so at the time. He also stressed that when new information became available to the military, steps were taken to correct the record by the military and by him as soon as was possible. Together, he claimed, this proved that there was no deliberate attempt to falsify or withhold information or mislead the House.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the Minister established beyond any doubt that he did not intend to mislead the House. Thus, he believed that from the outset, the requisite conditions for a finding of breach of privilege had not been satisfied. Finally, he concluded his remarks by challenging the validity of the hon. Member for St. John’s East’s contention that Members needed to rely on that information. He argued that it was already clear how the Member would vote.

At the core of this matter is the fundamental need for Members to offer and receive correct and truthful information at all times, regardless of the topic or proceeding. Members rely on accurate information to fulfill their parliamentary duties and represent the interests of all Canadians to the very best of their ability. There can be no second-guessing or predetermination or ranking of the need for or use of particular pieces of information. Members individually judge the importance of information as they receive it.

In his ruling of February 1, 2002, at page 8581 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken reiterated the importance of the need for accurate and truthful information in Parliament:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the Government to the House. Furthermore, in this case, as hon. Members have pointed out, integrity of information is of paramount importance since it directly concerns the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada’s participation in the war against terrorism.

In this instance, the Minister has acknowledged that he relayed inaccurate information to the House; on that there is no argument. The Minister rose in this House on April 1 to correct the record and subsequently tabled a later from the Chief of the Defence Staff in this regard. But is this, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for a finding of a breach of privilege? Has it met the three conditions defined by parliamentary practice?

For the benefit of all Members, the Chair would like to remind the House that first, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the Member making the statement has to know that the statement was incorrect when it was made. Finally, it needs to be proven that the Member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

Perhaps the most useful precedent in this case is that of Speaker Jerome from 1978. A careful reading of his ruling of December 6, 1978, tells us that, in that case, while a Minister also relayed erroneous information from officials to the House, the finding of prima facie was based squarely on the testimony of a former RCMP commissioner, which led the Speaker to conclude that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the Member and the House. Without such an admission of deliberate wrongdoing by military officials in this instance, the same conclusion cannot be drawn today.

In fact, the Minister made it very clear on April 2, 2015, page 12714 of the Debates, that officials had not, in his view, purposely misinformed the Minister when he stated:

I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that neither I nor the military, I believe, at any point purposefully or deliberately misled this place or the media. I have absolutely no doubt that the military believed the veracity of the information I was given, and I accepted the source credibility of those briefing me in conveying that to this place and to the public.

The Minister also stated:

It is regrettable that inaccurate information was provided, but that was not done with any mala fides, with any deliberation, or with any intent to falsify information.

With no evidence presented to the contrary, the conventions of this House dictate that, as your Speaker, I must take all Members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members’ statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.

Furthermore, as Speaker Milliken stated in his ruling of April 16,  2002, on page 10462 of the Debates:

If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow Member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperilled.

Based on a thorough assessment of the information brought forward, in my view there is no clear evidence that would lead me to conclude that the necessary conditions concerning misleading statements have been met, nor can I conclude that the Member for St. John’s East was somehow impeded in the performance of his parliamentary duties. Therefore, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

That being said, the Minister did indicate that the Chief of the Defence Staff will soon be appearing before the Standing Committee on National Defence and, in addition, that he and other officials would also be willing to appear. It is my sincere hope that Members will be able to use that opportunity to find answers to any outstanding questions that they may have about this important matter.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.