Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to address comments made by the Minister of National Defence in the House, and information provided to the House through an Order Paper question.
On January 30, the minister signed and tabled a response to Order Paper Question No. 600, which states:
All Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving at all Operation IMPACT Kuwait locations received Tax Relief effective 5 Oct 2014 (date at which the original risk scores became effective) to 1 Sep 2016.
Operation IMPACT (Iraq) has had Tax Relief since 22 Aug 2014, date at which the original risk score for this location became effective.
Operation IMPACT (Baghdad) has had Tax Relief since 17 Apr 2015, date at which the original risk score for this location became effective.
The answers to this question means that the troops that were deployed by the Conservative government had all their danger pay and tax relief benefits.
In response to questions during question period, on March 8, and most recently March 21, the minister contradicted himself.
Specifically, on March 8, the minister said, “I would also like to correct the member in terms of the previous government's actions on this. It actually sent troops into Kuwait without the tax-free allowance, something we had taken up.”
On March 21, the defence minister said, “I just wish he had the same passion when he sent the troops to Iraq without the tax-free benefits” and “the previous government was the one that actually sent our troops to Iraq without the tax-free benefit.”
I have engaged the minister several times in the House attempting to get him to correct the record. Time and time again the minister ignores the fact that he submitted information through the Order Paper question to the House has said one thing, and continues to leave on the Hansard record something entirely different.
On February 1, 2002, Speaker Milliken ruled on a matter with respect to the former minister of national defence. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar at the time alleged that the former minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days.
The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facia question of privilege. He stated, “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.”
The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include the following from page 115 of O'Brien and Bosc, which states, “Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.”
While Speaker Milliken in 2002 accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated, “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation.”
The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 67, which states:
There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties...
Speaker Milliken went on to state:
On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar to move his motion.
I would argue that the issue we have before us today is identical. The Minister of National Defence has informed the House that the previous government provided tax relief to our soldiers through an Order Paper question, signed by the minister himself, and has provided oral information in our debates that say the complete opposite.
Page 63, 22nd edition of Erskine May, refers to a resolution passed by the U.K. House. It reads:
...ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and to be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament...
How can the minister explain signing off on information that is tabled in the House that completely contradicts what he is saying in the House almost on a daily basis? Only one of these statements can be true.
I have given the minister many chances to correct the record, and as recently as March 21, he has refused.
On February 17, 2011, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House, and that as such, a prima facie case of privilege existed.
In his ruling on March 9, 2011, Speaker Milliken said:
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word “not” in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word “not”, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the “not” was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as “unfortunate”. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this “has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion”.
In a ruling on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part:
...the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be not—do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.
There are two versions of events before this House by the same source, the Minister of National Defence, and no effort has been made to clarify this matter. I ask that a prima facie case of question of privilege be found, and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.