Mr. Speaker, today, I rise on a question of privilege to bring your attention to the government's response to my question on the Order Paper, Q-97, that was tabled earlier this week on November 16. I am bringing this matter up at the first available opportunity since I have become aware of it.
Question No. 97 asked the following:
With regard to flights on government aircraft for personal and non-governmental business by the Prime Minister and his family, and by ministers and their families, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all such flights, including the (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) names of passengers, excluding security detail; and (b) for each flight, what was the total amount reimbursed to the government by each passenger?
The response was signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence on behalf of the Minister of National Defence.
According to the government's response on July 31, 2016, a government aircraft flew the Prime Minister, his immediate family, along with Ms. Grégoire Trudeau's parents and caregiver Marian Pueyo, from Vancouver to Tofino. However, the government's own flight logs, which have been released through an access to information request, indicate that the information contained in the government's response to Q-97 is factually incorrect.
For example, the flight logs for the trip indicate that Ms. Anna Gainey, then the Liberal Party president, was on that flight on July 31, 2016. In addition, the answer to Q-97 indicates that Anna Gainey was on the flight from Tofino to Vancouver, on August 13, 2016. However, according to the government's own flight logs, Ms. Gainey was not on the August 13, 2016, flight.
There is also a significant discrepancy in the government's response to Q-97 and the flight logs about which the family caregivers of the Prime Minister were on a number of flights in July and August of 2016. According to the response, signed on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, Marian Pueyo was on the flights both to and from Tofino. However, according to the flight logs, Ms. Pueyo was not on those flights, while Alexandra Overing, who was identified as a caregiver in a Globe and Mail article, from October 31, 2016, is listed on the flight logs. In fact, that same Globe and Mail article from October 31, 2016, confirmed that Anna Gainey travelled from Vancouver to Tofino. Kate Purchase, who was the Prime Minister's director of communications, is also quoted in that article, saying that Ms. Gainey travelled to Tofino as a guest of the Prime Minister and reimbursed the cost of an equivalent commercial flight.
It is clear from both the flight logs and the comments of the Prime Minister's former communications director that Ms. Gainey was on the flight from Vancouver to Tofino. However, the answer that I got to Q-97 does not list Ms. Gainey as a passenger on the fight.
The fact that this basic information in the government's response is incorrect and does not match up with the facts contained in the government's own logs is very concerning and hinders my ability as a member of Parliament to hold the government to account.
On December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled:
While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member....
On page 234 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, it states that in order for the Speaker to find a prima facie question of privilege “an admission by someone in authority, such as a Minister of the Crown or an officer of a department, an instrument of a government policy, or a government agency, either that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that leads naturally to the conclusion that a Member was intentionally misled....”
As I mentioned earlier, a Globe and Mail article from October 31, 2016, quoted Kate Purchase admitting to the facts that lead naturally to the conclusion that I was misled; namely, that Anna Gainey travelled from Tofino as a guest of the Prime Minister.
It is vital for the House that this information be tabled accurately in Parliament. False or misleading information should never be tabled in the House, especially not in response to a formal question on the Order Paper.
I would suggest that in the case of the Minister of National Defence and his parliamentary secretary, who signed the letter, they have misled the House in an answer containing false information. At the very least, various actors involved in this case have cast enough doubt as to warrant an investigation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 227, states:
In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply:
Does the act complained of appear at first sight 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...leave it to the House.
This citation is in reference to the ruling from March 21, 1978, page 3975 of the Debates, where the Speaker cites the report of the U.K. Select Committee on Parliamentary Privileges, and from a ruling of October 10, 1989, at pages 4457 to 4461 of the Debates.
Finally, in a ruling on October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of the Debates, the Speaker said:
In considering this matter I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege...considering also that the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind...I think at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.
I hope you take this matter under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.