I am now ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on June 11 by the member for Mirabel and on June 13 by the member for Lakeland concerning allegedly misleading statements made in committee of the whole.
The issues they brought forward relate to answers provided by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue during a meeting of the committee of the whole considering estimates on June 10 and by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources on June 11, respectively.
As both questions pertain to answers provided by ministers during their questioning on estimates, they have been grouped for the purpose of rendering a decision.
In his intervention, the member for Mirabel alleged that the Minister of Finance and National Revenue intentionally misled the House by affirming in a response to a question that the Canada carbon rebate, issued as part of the federal carbon pollution pricing proceeds program during the election, was paid from funds collected by the program. He argued that the minister stated this, knowing that the timing of the Prime Minister's announcement to suspend the consumer portion of the program, and the issuing of the rebate weeks later during the election campaign, suggests that a different source was used to fund the rebate.
The Minister of Finance and National Revenue defended his response, denying having misled the House. According to the minister, he had responded in the negative to a question making an allusion to the buying of votes, not about the timing for the collection of funds.
For her part, the member for Lakeland contended that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources had misled the House in denying that politicians would be empowered to select specific projects of national interest under Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act. According to the member, several provisions of the bill seem to contradict the minister’s responses, a text that he ought to have known. The member argued that the criteria used to determine whether a statement was deliberately misleading was met and that this situation amounted to contempt. Quoting from a ruling made by Speaker Rota on July 22, 2020, she ended her intervention by explaining the difficulties relating to questions of privilege arising in committees of the whole, due to their usual format as single-event bodies, which complicates the raising of such questions.
In response to this second question of privilege, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader provided a different interpretation of the exchange. He stated that the format of the committee of the whole is not designed to receive informed and contextualized answers. He argued that in no way did the minister deliberately mislead the House in responding to the member. The selection process in identifying projects will involve various consultations and will involve engagement with diverse groups. He apologized on behalf of the government for any confusion the debate may have caused.
As this is my first ruling on a question of privilege, and for the benefit of the members newly elected to this place, I will ask for their indulgence in reiterating and explaining some key concepts.
The Chair would like to first address what may seem to some as a technical element, namely, that the statements in question were made during proceedings in committee of the whole.
When the House resolves itself into a committee of the whole, it is, for all intents and purposes, functioning as a committee to consider a matter the House has referred to it. In this regard, the practice for raising questions of privilege emanating from a committee of the whole is the same as that of a standing, special or legislative committee. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 157:
The Speaker will entertain a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a Committee of the Whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the Committee of the Whole and reported accordingly to the House.
It also says, at pages 933 and 934:
The Chair [of the committee of the whole] has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege has occurred. The Chair hears the question of privilege and may receive and put a motion that certain events which occurred in the Committee should be reported to the House. If the Committee decides that the matter should be reported, then the Chair rises, the Speaker takes the Chair, and the Chair of the Committee reports the question of privilege. The Speaker then deals with the matter. If a prima facie case of privilege is found by the Speaker, a Member may move a motion dealing with the matter.
In his July 22, 2020, ruling, found on pages 2701 and 2702 of the Debates, to which the member for Lakeland briefly referred in her intervention, Speaker Rota acknowledged the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format. He also highlighted the particular nature of the situation he had been asked to adjudicate. A chronological review of events shows that this specific question of privilege had been first raised in committee of the whole and taken under advisement by the Speaker, who was also chairing the committee. It is also worth mentioning that an order of the House was limiting the committee's ability to consider and report on questions of privilege. These exceptional circumstances had led to Speaker Rota's decision to rule on the matter, even though no report had been presented by the committee of the whole.
The Chair recognizes that there may sometimes be challenges with the committee of the whole format, in particular during the consideration of estimates. They, however, do not exempt members of their obligation to raise their concerns there first. The two cases presented last week by the members for Mirabel and Lakeland are no exception to this rule and are not akin to the 2020 precedent.
That being said, the Chair nonetheless reviewed whether the specifics of the two present questions of privilege would warrant a deviation from our normal practice and considered the points raised by the members on their merits before discarding them on technical grounds.
Accusing a member of having misled the House is quite serious as it may touch on their integrity. The threshold for determining if it constitutes a prima facie question of privilege is therefore very high. There must be little or no doubt left as to the validity of the claim made.
The members for Mirabel and Lakeland rightfully referred to three criteria the Chair assesses when dealing with such allegations, namely, whether the statement is in fact misleading, whether the member making the statement knew it to be incorrect and, in making the statement, whether the member intended to mislead the House.
Disagreements over facts, or how they are presented, are not uncommon in our proceedings, and members often believe that responses they receive from the government either are not correct or contradict other information they have. However, a perception of incorrect statements is not equal to a clear and deliberate intention to mislead the House.
As Speaker Regan indicated on May 18, 2017, at page 11389 of the Debates:
As members will know, the exchange of information in this place is constantly subject to varying and, yes, contradictory views and perceptions. This, of course, heightens the risk that, inadvertently, a member making a statement may be mistaken, or, in turn, that a member listening may misunderstand what another has stated.
The Chair acknowledges the dissatisfaction members expressed about the responses they received in committee of the whole. After all, the consideration of estimates is an essential accountability exercise, but taking into account the explanations provided by the minister and the parliamentary secretary, there indeed seems to be a dispute as to the facts.
If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements. For there to be a prima facie question of privilege, members must also present some evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead. I have not seen any such evidence in this case.
Furthermore, and before closing, as Speaker, I am bound to accepting members at their word, a long-standing tradition of this place. As one of my predecessors, the current Leader of the Opposition, indicated on April 29, 2015, at page 13198 of the Debates:
as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.
Accordingly, the Chair does not find there to be prima facie questions of privilege in either case.
I thank all members for their attention.
