Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

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

October 30, 2018

Debates, p. 23033

On October 18, 2018, Luc Thériault (Montcalm) rose on a question of privilege alleging that Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister) knowingly misled the House by providing inaccurate information during Oral Questions on Wednesday, October 17, 2018. Mr. Thériault observed that, in response to a question by Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l’Île), the Prime Minister stated that the provinces, including Quebec, had asked the federal government for a period of eight to twelve weeks between the coming into force of Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts, and the actual legalization of the substance, and that this contradicted a motion adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on November 16, 2017. Mr. Thériault further argued that the Prime Minister was made aware of this resolution, and that by providing information that he knew to be incorrect, he had deliberately misled the House. The Speaker took the matter under consideration.^[1]

Resolution

On October 30, 2018, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reiterated that for the Chair to rule that a member misled the House, three well-established conditions must be met. He added that the role of the Chair is limited to the review of statements made in a proceeding of Parliament and that any dispute regarding the accuracy of responses to Oral Questions is a matter of debate. Finding no clear evidence that the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the House, the Speaker 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 October 18, 2018, by the member for Montcalm regarding an alleged misleading statement made by the Prime Minister during question period.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Montcalm for having raised the matter.

During his intervention, the member for Montcalm argued that the Prime Minister had misled the House by providing inaccurate information when, during question period on October 17, 2018, he said that the provinces had asked the federal government for a period of eight to twelve weeks between the time the bill legalizing marijuana came into force and the substance’s actual legalization. This answer, according to the member, contradicts a motion adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on November 16, 2017, one which the member further claimed the Prime Minister was aware of. The hon. member for Montcalm thus feels that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House, a contempt that constitutes a breach of privilege.

The question of whether a member has intentionally misled the House is always a serious one, and the member for Montcalm reminded us of this when he enumerated the three well-established questions the Speaker must answer when deciding whether such an accusation is a valid question of privilege.

Additionally, as I stated during a ruling I made on November 20, 2017, at page 15303 of the Debates:

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.

As a result, apart from the Prime Minister’s response during question period, the Speaker cannot be officially apprised of anything said to have transpired outside the walls of this place and on which the hon. member for Montcalm is basing his argument.

As Speaker Milliken said on January 31, 2008, at page 2435 of the Debates:

any dispute regarding the accuracy … of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.

The proceedings in the House are a forum for differing opinions to be vigorously debated. This is the reason why I remind members to demonstrate the greatest care to ensure that the information recited to the House is clear; doing so will allow everyone to fulfill their roles as they should.

Based on the remarks made in the House on October 17, 2018, there is no clear evidence that would lead me to conclude that the criteria for a deliberately misleading statement were met. Accordingly, I do not find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.