Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

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

April 17, 2018

Debates, pp. 18440–1

On March 21, 2018, Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar) rose on a question of privilege regarding the allegedly contradictory statements Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister) and Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) had made in the House on February 26 and 27, 2018, regarding the invitation made to Jaspal Atwal to attend an event with the Prime Minister during a trip to India. Ms. Bergen contended that the government was refusing to clarify the record, thereby violatingd the right of members to obtain accurate and non-conflicting information.^[1] On March 27, 2018, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued instead that members must be taken at their word and that the matter at hand involved a simple dispute as to the facts. That same day, Erin O’Toole (Durham) added another allegation regarding the government’s contradictory statements, with respect to whether or not the information provided by the Prime Minister’s national security adviser during a media briefing was classified. The Deputy Speaker (Bruce Stanton) took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On April 17, 2018, the Speaker delivered his ruling. Regarding the accuracy of statements by members, he said that the Chair is not given the authority to determine the veracity of statements or their consistency with previous statements. He pointed out that disputes over facts, opinions and conclusions drawn from these facts are matters of debate, because these exchanges of information are subject to contradictory views and perceptions, which can be interpreted differently depending on the individual. The Speaker reminded the House that for the Chair to accept an accusation that the House had been deliberately misled, it must be certain that the statement had in fact been misleading, that the member had known when making the statement that it was incorrect and that the member had intended to mislead the House. In the case at hand, the Speaker was not convinced that these requirements were met, and he concluded that there was no prima facie question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 21, 2018, by the hon. House leader for the official opposition concerning answers provided to the House during oral questions by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I would like to thank the Opposition House Leader for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the member for Durham for their comments.

In raising the matter, the House leader for the official opposition contended that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness provided contradictory answers to the House on February 26th and 27th in response to a simple question about who was responsible for an invitation sent to Mr. Jaspal Atwal for an event during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to India. She argued that despite the members’ right to obtain accurate and non-conflicting information when asking questions of the government, the government refuses to clarify the matter.

On March 27, the member for Durham added a second allegation, that of conflicting answers as to the confidentiality of information provided by the Prime Minister’s national security adviser in a briefing to journalists about the same matter.

The parliamentary secretary argued that the question of privilege was not anything more than a matter of debate given that it concerns a dispute as to accuracy of answers to oral questions and that members must be taken at their word.

To summarize this issue, the Chair is being asked to decide whether answers provided by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are, in fact, contradictory and, ultimately, provide a conclusive finding of fact in the matter.

This presupposes an authority that I, as Speaker, do not have. As members are only too aware, the role of the Speaker as it relates to the accuracy of statements is very restricted, as I can determine neither their veracity nor their consistency with prior statements. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at page 529:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.

Furthermore, as I had cause to say on May 18, 2017, at page 11389 of Debates:

As members will know, the exchange of information in this place is constantly subject to varying and, yes, contradictory, views and perceptions. This, of course, heightens the risk that, inadvertently, a member making a statement may be mistaken, or, in turn, that a member listening may misunderstand what another has stated.

Speaker Jerome alluded to a similar situation, stating on June 4, 1975, on page 6431 of Debates:

… a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

For the Chair to accept an accusation that the House was deliberately misled, it must be able to ascertain with a high degree of certainty that the statement was in fact misleading, that the member knew when making the statement that it was incorrect, and that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

While the Chair understands that the significant complexity and the considerable media coverage of the issue may be conducive to different interpretations, the Chair is not convinced that the House has been deliberately misled. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this matter.

I would like to thank hon. members for their attention.