Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to a very relevant point that my NDP colleague from Timmins—James Bay raised during his excellent speech.
My colleague very clearly explained the crux of the problem, and I agree with the arguments he made. However, I would like to add a few points. The issue before us today is a very serious one. The Prime Minister made misleading statements in the House when he said that no one in his office knew about the agreement between Nigel Wright, his former chief of staff, and Senator Mike Duffy. That constitutes a breach of the privilege of all members of the House, as O'Brien and Bosc explain on page 111 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:
...some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.
Above all, this is an affront to Canadians who put their trust in this Parliament and who expect their government to provide truthful information to the House.
I can already hear the type of arguments that my colleagues opposite, particularly the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, could put forward to keep this issue from being thoroughly examined, as they unfortunately so often do. For example, I imagine that they will say that the statements the Prime Minister makes in the House are protected by freedom of speech, that an MP's privileges when he addresses the House are absolute and that we cannot conclude that a statement that is protected by parliamentary privilege can violate that same privilege.
On page 93 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states:
The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its Members were able to speak and criticize without having to account to any outside body. There would be no freedom of speech if everything had to be proven true before it were uttered.
What needs to be understood here is that parliamentary freedom provides specific protection so that legal action cannot be taken against MPs for what they say in the House. O'Brien and Bosc indicates that:
Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make.
Freedom of speech allows MPs to do their work in the House in the interest of Canadians. That does not mean that MPs can provide the House with misleading information on issues where the facts are clear and spelled out in black and white—as is the case here—without any repercussions from the House. MPs, particularly the Prime Minister, cannot use freedom of speech as an excuse for misleading the people who elected them.
Former speaker Fraser clarified this concept in 1987. He said:
These institutions [Parliament and the courts] enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked, and that debate can be free and uninhibited.
However, there are limits to freedom of speech. Former speaker Fraser went on to say:
Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible....All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.
One of the practices we have to prevent abuse is to denounce misleading statements and to determine whether they constitute contempt of Parliament.
I also expect that some of my colleagues opposite will try to claim that this is not a question of privilege because it concerns the Prime Minister's replies during question period and nothing can dictate the content of his answers.
My hon. colleagues might also say that members just happen to disagree on the facts and this is a question of debate rather than privilege.
Indeed, the Speaker's role is limited during question period, as described in O'Brien and Bosc, at page 510, and I quote:
The Speaker ensures that replies adhere to the dictates of order, decorum and parliamentary language. The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.
First, what we have here is not a disagreement on the facts. The facts could not be any clearer. We have the Prime Minister's statements in the House and we have the statements of Nigel Wright's lawyers and the RCMP. There is an obvious and direct contradiction there.
Furthermore, in reference to the Speaker not being responsible for the quality of the answers during question period, we are talking about cases where a prime minister and his ministers either avoid answering questions from the opposition or do not provide all the available information, which unfortunately happens far too often with this Conservative government.
There are no parliamentary rules that allow a prime minister or his ministers to provide false or misleading information, once they do choose to answer a question. This applies to any other questions.
When misleading information is provided in the House, the Speaker not only can, but must, rule on that question.
There was in fact a similar case, in 2002, when the Conservative member for Portage—Lisgar stated that the Minister of National Defence had intentionally misled the House in his response to a question about prisoners in Afghanistan during question period.
The Speaker ruled that it was a prima facie question of privilege, and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Furthermore, I would remind the House that question period is one of the only times when the Prime Minister addresses the House and Canadians. If he cannot be held accountable for what he says at that time, then when can he be held accountable?
If the Prime Minister can say whatever he likes during question period without having to answer for what he says, how can Canadian voters be assured that their government will be held to account?
As my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay put it so well, whether the Prime Minister misled the House intentionally or as a result of being misled by his own staff, the upshot is that members of Parliament, and therefore Canadians, have had their privileges breached and our democracy has suffered as a result.
How can Canadians rely on the truthfulness of any information provided by the government if we do not get to the bottom of this?
I therefore hope that you will find that there is a prima facie question of privilege and that you will allow my hon. colleague to move his motion to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In closing, to ensure that all members have access to the relevant information on the matter, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table RCMP Corporal Greg Horton's production and sealing order.