Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay, regarding the Prime Minister's remarks in question period on June 5, 2013. These comments are supplemental to my initial comments last Thursday. I assured the House that I would return, and that is what I am doing right now.
The assertions of the member for Timmins—James Bay for the NDP are absurd. They are more a political stunt than a question of privilege. From the outset, I would like to point to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser of May 5, 1987, on pages 5765 and 5766 of the Debates. He said:
I would remind the House, however, that a direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion of which the usual notice is required. This is another long-standing practice designed to avoid judgment by innuendo and to prevent the overextended use of our absolute privilege of freedom of speech. One of my distinguished predecessors, Mr. Speaker Michener, in a ruling on June 19, 1959, which has frequently been quoted in this House stated that this is a practice demanded by simple justice.
As I told the House last week, the Prime Minister has been very clear on this matter. He had no knowledge of Mr. Wright's personal payment until May 15, after it was reported. The file was handled by Nigel Wright, and he has taken sole responsibility.
As the Prime Minister said during the summer adjournment, after this new information came to light, “when I answered questions about this in the House of Commons, I answered questions to the best of my knowledge”.
We also heard this Monday, from the right hon. member in question period. Let me refer to the blues:
I answered based on the information I had at that time.
What is more is that the Prime Minister told us this and made this record clear during the first question period he attended after the subsequent news became public over the summer. The case presented by the opposition centres on a ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome in relation to evidence heard at a royal commission. The unique nature of that case was later explained in a ruling of Mr. Speaker Francis on January 24, 1984 at page 701 of the Debates. He said:
In every case, except one, that I have studied that is relevant to the issue involved, the Speaker has ruled that there was no prima facie case of privilege. The question I have to answer is whether the facts in this instance require that this one decision by Mr. Speaker Jerome in 1978 should be the relevant precedent. In the 1978 case, there was evidence before the McDonald Commission that the then Solicitor General had been deliberately misled by officials under his jurisdiction. That evidence was the specific element which led Mr. Speaker Jerome to find a prima facie case of privilege and to allow the usual motion to be put to the House. In the present case before the Chair there is no such admission of wrongdoing or of wilful omission by officials or by the Minister.
The admission in question was described by Madam Speaker Sauvé on May 27, 1981 at page 9979 of the Debates in another ruling that distinguished the 1978 case. She said:
That precedent has to do with a letter which had been improperly drafted by the RCMP and which they admitted had been improperly drafted....
As pointed out by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, Mr. Speaker, your ruling of May 7, 2012 at page 7649 of the Debates articulated a three-part test for establishing a contempt in relation to misleading the House. Referring back to the words I just quoted from my right hon. friend, the claim by the hon. member opposite fails in no fewer than two respects of that test you articulated. First, no answers given in the House were known to be incorrect. On Thursday, I quoted from the Prime Minister's July comments. On Monday, we heard from him here in the House.
Citation 494 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, states:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted.
This is echoed by Mr. Speaker Fraser on November 1, 1990 at page 14970 of the Debates. He said:
...it is a fundamental principle and long-established convention of the House to accept as true the word of an hon. member.
On the second branch of that three-part test, there was no intention whatsoever to mislead the House in any way, shape or form. The necessity of intent is a consistent thread through countless Speakers' rulings over the years. For example, Mr. Speaker Parent, on October 19, 2000 at page 9247 of the Debates, said:
Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.
Madam Speaker Sauvé addressed situations like this on May 27, 1982 at page 17824 of the Debates. She said:
The Chair cannot give precedence to a motion offered under the head of privilege unless it can be determined, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed....Assertions have been made to that effect, but they remain assertions, and as such do not provide grounds for the Chair to find a prima facie breach of privilege.
Unlike the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, let me offer a fact. The Prime Minister's actual conduct is entirely consistent with the answers he provided. On May 28, the Right Hon. Prime Minister said:
On Wednesday, May 15, I was told about it. At that very moment, I demanded that my office ensure that the public was informed....
That is the expectation he set for his own office and for his own staff. His immediate direction to staff to issue a public statement indicating that such a payment from Mr. Wright occurred is the action of someone being open and candid with the public. It is not the conduct of someone seeking to hide anything. That is also entirely consistent with his answers here in the House.
If the Prime Minister set such a clear expectation for his staff, how can the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay reconcile his allegations with the words of the Prime Minister? As I mentioned earlier, it is long established that members are taken at their word. The Prime Minister has been forthright, he has been public about this matter and he has been clear about this in both word and in deed.
In conclusion, I respectfully submit that there is no prima facie case of privilege. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you should be able to dismiss the question based on the ample arguments here presented without the need for further interventions on the point.