Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

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

January 30, 2018

Debates, pp. 16491–2

On December 5, 2017, Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge) rose on a question of privilege concerning alleged misleading statements made by Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue). He argued that the minister provided responses to Oral Questions that contradicted information outlined in an internal department memo obtained through an access to information request regarding the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit. The next day, December 6, 2017, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued in turn that the statements made by the minister were neither inaccurate nor contradictory and that the matter instead simply involved a disagreement as to the facts. On December 12, 2017, the minister maintained that her previous comments had been valid although she acknowledged the unintentional confusion that had arisen due to the cited internal memo. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

Resolution

On January 30, 2018, the Speaker delivered his ruling. After reminding members to raise questions of privilege at the earliest opportunity, the Speaker reiterated that the role of the Chair is limited to considering only those statements made during a proceeding of Parliament. Thus, having reviewed only the statements made by the minister in the House itself, the Chair was unable to find evidence that they were deliberately misleading and, accordingly, could not find a prima facie case of privilege. The Speaker concluded by noting the time-honoured tradition of taking members at their word and asked members to keep exchanges of information clear and accurate.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On December 5, 2017, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge raised a question of privilege concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the Minister of National Revenue.

I would like to thank the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge for raising this matter, as well as the Minister of National Revenue, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for their comments, which assisted me in assessing the prima facie merits of this question of privilege.

The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge explained that some responses to oral questions made by the Minister of National Revenue regarding disability credit eligibility criteria contradicted information found in an internal departmental memo obtained through an access to information request. The member explained that the minister had repeatedly said that the disability credit eligibility criteria had not changed nor were there any changes to the way the law is interpreted. However, in the member’s opinion, the departmental memo showed otherwise. This, he contended, was proof that the minister had deliberately misled the House.

He then raised this matter again on December 11, adding that comments by the minister’s parliamentary secretary in a recent media interview were further proof of this allegation.

In turn, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons noted that, as the minister’s statements were neither inaccurate nor contradictory, the requisite conditions for determining that the House had been misled have not been met. Thus, he concluded that this is simply a matter of debate.

The Minister of National Revenue rose in the House on December 12, and maintained the validity of her previous statements to the House on this matter. However, she did concede that the internal departmental memo in question, even though she argued it did not outline a change to the eligibility criteria, may have had unintended consequences in contributing to confusion. For that, the minister apologized.

Before addressing the matter at hand, I would like to remind members of the conditions involved in raising a question of privilege.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 141, states:

First, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made and, second, the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

There is a tacit understanding that, if a matter goes to the heart of a member’s or the House’s privileges and immunities, or that contempt is involved, it is of the highest importance and should be addressed urgently. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 143, reminds us that:

…the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

This, of course, is in addition to the need for members to provide a written statement to the Speaker at least one hour before rising in the House.

When examining a charge that a member has deliberately misled the House, the Speaker is strictly limited with respect to what can and cannot be considered. As recently as November 20, 2017, at page 15303 of the Debates, I reiterated the following:

Members know well that in any case in which the veracity of what a member of the House has said is called into question, the Chair’s role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.

Speaker Milliken also upheld this important principle on February 10, 2011, at page 8030 of the Debates, stating that:

…the Chair is bound by very narrow parameters in situations such as this one. It may sound overly technical but the reality is that when adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair is obliged to reference material fully and properly before the House.

As has been acknowledged, in examining this case, involving a series of statements by the minister, there are three necessary conditions to be met: the statements must be misleading; the member must know when making them that they are incorrect; and, finally, there must be proof that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

In reviewing the statements made by the minister, which is all that the Chair is able to assess in this instance, I am unable to find evidence that they were deliberately misleading when measured against the threshold set by the House.

This is in addition to our long-standing practice of accepting members at their word, something I am bound to do. As my predecessor stated on April 29, 2015, at page 13198 of the Debates:

…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.

Consequently, for these reasons, I cannot find that a prima facie question of privilege exists.

That being said, this situation should serve as a pointed reminder of the need for clear and accurate exchanges of information in the House. Members’ inalienable right to clarity and consistency in the information they receive underpins their ability to carry out properly their responsibilities as legislators and representatives. Any information that fails to support this right and obligation is in essence a disservice to all members.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.