Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

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

March 29, 2018

Debates, p. 18272

On March 21, 2018, Pierre Poilievre (Carleton) rose on a point of order regarding the alleged conflicting statements of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities about the existence of a plan for government infrastructure spending.^[1] Mr. Poilievre pointed out that a report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that there was no such plan, but the minister claimed that it did exist during question period that same day. The member contended that, if the plan did exist, the government was in contempt of the House for refusing to provide the plan to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and, if the plan did not exist, the minister had provided false information to the House. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

Resolution

On March 29, 2018, the Deputy Speaker (Bruce Stanton) delivered his ruling. He said it was not up to the Chair to weigh in on the correctness or exactness of the answer a minister provides to the House. In the case at hand, he ruled that the issue of whether infrastructure plans existed was a matter of debate. He concluded by emphasizing the need for members to have accurate and clear information and the responsibility of those providing this information to ensure its accuracy and correctness.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised on March 21 by the hon. member for Carleton concerning information provided to the House by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. I would like to thank the member for Carleton for having raised this matter.

The member for Carleton explained that a report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled in the House stated that no plan existed for the government’s expenditure of $186.7 billion on infrastructure but that, conversely, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities stated during oral questions on March 21 that such a plan did exist. The member argued that if such a plan existed and the Parliamentary Budget Officer had been denied it, the government would be in contempt, but if the plan did not exist, then the minister had provided false information to the House.

In essence, the Chair is being asked to weigh in about the correctness or exactness of the answer provided by the minister to the House. Members are, of course, aware of the well-defined limits that are placed on the Chair in this respect. As such, the Chair cannot unilaterally assume a role in the interpretation of these facts or, more particularly, decide even if the plan alluded to by the minister is the same plan that is referred to in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report “Budget 2018: Issues for Parliamentarians”, which was tabled in the House on March 19.

Additionally, as the previous speaker reminded the House on April 30, 2014, at page 4753 of the Debates:

[I]t is not sufficient for members to simply make allegations based on their perceptions of what is or is not factually correct. Members must recognize and accept the existence of differences of fact and interpretation, which have always been a part of the normal cut and thrust of debate and question period.

Thus, any question concerning the existence of infrastructure plans is a matter better defined as debate.

However, the Chair notes that this matter also speaks to the unwavering need for accuracy and clarity in the information that members of Parliament receive, as well as the need for those providing that information to shoulder this responsibility in a serious and consistent way. The House would be well served by this being remembered in all exchanges of information.

I thank hon. members for their attention.