Ted Hsu

[Petitions, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions today. The first one is from my constituents of Kingston and the Islands, and it concerns Bills C-38 and C-45, which gutted protection for ecosystems, especially around bodies of water.

The petitioners call on the government to recognize the importance of ecosystems to our well-being and prosperity, and they call on the federal government to restore federal statutory protections for fish and other natural habitats.

[Privilege, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rose last Wednesday to raise a question of privilege in relation to a report central to the deliberations of the House on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. I have since had the benefit of reading the interventions of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the hon. Minister of Justice and I wish to respond this evening.

Briefly, for the benefit of members listening who are unfamiliar with the issue, the government commissioned a report on persons found not criminally responsible last year. This report was received last November.

When researchers discovered in March an error involving the transposition of data labels, they diligently worked to provide the department with a corrected version. However, after the corrections were provided to the government, the minister continued to cite from the old report in debates, an old report that the government, even after being apprised of the error, tabled in the House.

When first rising on this point, I thought it very important that the House be provided with the correct numbers in a timely manner. Indeed, the basis of my intervention was that as a scientist MP in particular, I am impeded in my work when evidence in the form of quantitative information is withheld or concealed. Moreover, I feel that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was unable to properly study Bill C-54 with incorrect data before it.

I rise today to respond to the intervention on this matter from the Minister of Justice. At the outset, let me state that I appreciate his prompt attention to the matter, and I also appreciate that he decided to not repeat in the House the comments of the spokesperson for his office as reported in the press, comments that criticized both the researchers and their work and could have unfairly damaged their careers and reputations.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intent in my intervention today to argue two things.

One is that the government lacked a necessary sense of responsibility, urgency and rigour in correcting factual errors germane to the debate on Bill C-54, and that this neglect had significant consequences for the work of the House.

Second, I would like to propose, if you find that my privilege has been breached, that a commensurate and positive remedy would be one that formally led to a systematic way for ministers and members to correct any significant factual errors presented to the House. I believe that would improve the work of the House for the benefit of all members and for the good of Canada.

At the end of his intervention last week and in response to the request in my initial intervention, the Minister of Justice tabled a report in this place. I thank the Minister of Justice for that. However, and regrettably, that document gives rise to what is potentially a new point of order that I can only raise now, having seen the document for the first time on Friday.

As the Journals for last Thursday note at page 3406, the Minister of Justice

...laid upon the Table,—Document entitled “Description and Processing of Individuals Found not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder Accused of “Serious Violent Offences”” (English text only).

This note is followed by the annotation “Sessional Paper No. 8525-411-60”.

I wish to raise two issues here. First, as O'Brien and Bosc note on page 433:

All documents tabled in the House by a Minister or, as the case may be, by a Parliamentary Secretary, whether during a sitting or deposited with the Clerk, are required to be presented in both official languages.

The citation therein is to Standing Order 32(4):

Any document distributed in the House or laid before the House pursuant to sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order shall be in both official languages”

I do not wish to belabour this point at length, but I note that the minister sought unanimous consent to table the document, something which he is not required to do by virtue of his being a minister. That said, he did not specify to the House that the document was only in one language. I believe the minister will agree that all documents tabled in this place ought to be tabled in both official languages of this country, and I must say I found it curious that he sought consent without informing the House of why it was needed. Had he specified he wanted to consent to table it unilingually, it is quite possible that some hon. members would not have agreed.

Second, and this is the bigger issue, the document tabled was not actually the final March report as we know it now to be. Instead, what was laid upon the table was a work product version replete with "track changes" intact. “Track changes” is a feature used to manage multiple versions of Microsoft Word documents. While I trust that some members will now appreciate having the opportunity to study a version of the report with correct data, it is regrettable that the minister did not table the clean and finalized copy, with which I am now aware his office was provided on the same day as this version.

Additionally, the minister did not table a copy in French. Surely the final report in both languages would best suit members studying the matter and perhaps re-evaluating their position vis-à-vis Bill C-54.

In his comments in this place, the Minister of Justice stated that the corrected report had been available online for some time, providing reference to the website for the national trajectory project.

I would first begin by noting that the version on this website is clean and not the one that the minister tabled in the House.

In addition, I visited the website over the weekend. The minister is correct in saying that the report is available, but it is only available in English. There is no French version.

Since there is no French version on that website, strictly speaking, I would have to object to the minister's assertion that "the amended version in fact has been available online for everyone to see". Indeed, as I verified with the researchers, no French copy of the corrected version existed anywhere in the public domain and, to my knowledge, it still does not.

The manner in which the minister tabled the revised research report last week is an illustration of the government's lack of rigour. It is his responsibility as minister to ensure that the members of the House have the information required to make informed legislative decisions. Rather than tabling the final report, the minister tabled a unilingual draft version. In failing to provide these updated statistics in a transparent way by tabling a draft report rather than a final report, and then only in response to my intervention, I believe that the minister has failed in his responsibilities to the House. Because the minister has shirked his responsibilities, he has violated my privileges as a member.

There is a critical contention that is not refuted by the Minister of Justice's comments on the matter of privilege. In his submission of last Thursday, he stated, "We gave notice that the report had been significantly amended". This notice was only given in an order paper response. The problem, as you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, is that saying there is an amended report and actually providing the amended report are two separate things.

Beyond that, on May 27, the Minister of Justice said to the House "I referred to some of the statistics in the final report", knowing full well that he had, in fact, referred to statistics that were no longer in the corrected report because researchers had diligently reviewed their findings, discovered significant errors and transmitted them to him as soon as possible. Over two months after receiving the "significantly amended" report, the minister was referring to erroneous data in what he called a "final report" from November, 2012. This to me suggests an intent to mislead the House.

I understand that the Speaker does not generally delve into the minutiae of order paper responses; however, I must note with frustration that the government's response to a question asking for current statistics, as part of Question No. 1169 on the order paper, a response that simply pointed to the old report given in annex 1, would indeed mislead the House and provide members with the impression that the report in annex 1 was the significantly amended one, when it was in fact the old one.

In responding to questions posed in Question No. 1169 on the order paper, such as "Which people found NCR and released have been convicted of a subsequent offence?" and "What was the nature of the subsequent offence", the government had the option to use information it knew to be correct. Instead, it chose to respond with information it knew to be incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I am told you have no role in adjudicating the sufficiency of answers to order paper questions. However, I believe you cannot deny that the government did not use that opportunity to take responsibility and correct important factual errors.

I will now focus on one aspect of the privilege question more precisely, the central issue of incorrect data cited in this House.

I rose in this place last Wednesday, June 12, after routine proceedings. This was my first opportunity since the June 11 Global News story about recent citations of incorrect statistics by a minister and a government member.

Yet that same afternoon, June 12, after the Global News report and after my question was raised, a witness before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights testifying about Bill C-54, Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association stated the following, as reported by the blues. I will quote his citation of the Minister of Justice.

The Hon. Rob Nicholson provided some interesting facts in the House of Commons debate on March 1, 2013, about persons found not criminally responsible, when he stated that:

A little over 27% of individuals found not criminally responsible have had a past finding of not criminally responsible; 38% of those found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding; 27% of those accused of attempted murder had at least one NCR finding; and, 19% of those accused of murder or homicide had at least one prior finding of not criminally responsible.

This underscores the problem. Ministers' words carry significant weight by virtue of the resources they command and the respect given to their office. However, all of these statistics quoted by the aforementioned witness are incorrect. I know it, the minister knows it, and now, as of this report being tabled, all English-reading parliamentarians know it.

The problem, as I believe you will see, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister's act of informing Parliament did not correct the Hansard record of March 1. His assertion that the corrected report could have been found on a website is unconvincing, as that source did not inform certain witnesses or even government members, such as the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, who cited old numbers at committee during its study on this bill.

I should be clear that I do not fault the witnesses for their use of the facts as they were provided. I do not believe any of them had any intention to mislead Parliament. I do, however, take issue with the minister only tabling the correct numbers after the committee had reported the bill back to the House, and the use of old statistics by other government members.

In particular, regarding the citation of old statistics by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Justice explained that, “...the Minister of Natural Resources was provided, as were many government members, with supporting documentation that in error included the statistics....”

He then added, with respect to the Minister of Natural Resources, “This was nothing more, quite frankly, than an honest mistake, not of his own doing, and I hope this addresses entirely the matter pertaining to the hon. minister.”

While I greatly appreciate the Minister of Justice acknowledging that a mistake had been made, I must disagree with the conclusion he draws as to the matter being closed.

Indeed, if the Minister of Justice's proposition, that all members should have gone online and consulted the corrected report, is followed through to its logical conclusion, this obligation would equally extend and apply to the Minister of Natural Resources and all government members. The Minister of Justice was quick to suggest that I should do “a simple Internet search”. Surely his fellow minister and other government members ought to have done the same Internet search. If even the Minister of Natural Resources and his office were misled, how could regular members of Parliament to be expected to discover the true facts?

Given that, as of Friday, June 14, the report from Dr. Crocker's research group had not yet been translated, and therefore had not been tabled in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, do we even know if all of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights knew the correct facts when they adopted report 25 on Bill C-54 on June 12, 2013?

Returning to the elements of privilege as outlined in my initial submission, the minister failed to address another point. As I noted, the minister referred to the November report as “final” despite having received the corrected report. He again, in his intervention on my question of privilege, used the word “final” in relation to the November 2012 report.

I do believe this misleads the House. The November report is not final if there is a corrected March report. Similarly, the report tabled is not final if it is not the final version submitted, which it, the one submitted containing Microsoft Word's track changes, is not.

Moreover, while the Minister of Justice has indicated a mistake in what was provided to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Natural Resources has yet to recognize his error before this body. I believe he ought to do so and, more importantly, tell the House whether knowing the actual facts has changed his mind about Bill C-54.

Speaker Milliken often ruled in the past, which I will cite from Monday, October 4, 2010, as follows, “it is also a long-standing practice in this House for the Chair to accept the word of hon. members and indeed their apologies”. I agree, but we have not yet heard from the Minister of Natural Resources personally, one way or the other.

In my initial submission, I stated that I would even consider abandoning this privilege claim if the government were to table the new report in the House and explain why it did not choose to do so when it was first made aware of the correction. While the government did provide a document, not the final report, it did not explain why it had yet to table it and, indeed, basically sought to say it had done everything it ought to have done. I disagree.

I would like to move now to discuss what I think would be an appropriate and commensurate remedy for any breach of privilege. It is not because I wish to presume to know your decision, Mr. Speaker, but it is because I believe this matter can result in a positive legacy for Canadians and I wish to explain how.

My colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley helpfully pointed out the following to the House in support of my question of privilege:

—the 22nd edition of Erskine May, which states the following on page 63: “[I]t is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

Had the ministers, in fact, corrected in an obvious and accessible way the errors that were preserved on the record, witnesses would have not quoted them after my intervention as evidence in committee. Had the record been corrected, witnesses and parliamentarians would have had accurate information upon which to formulate their positions on this gravely important issue.

Moving forward, the question becomes whether this matter should go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, an issue on which we should have guidance from you, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of how you rule on privilege merits, it is the obligation of members to correct themselves on important matters and the means by which this might be done. I believe all members would agree that it is important to, as much as we can, ensure that erroneous so-called facts are not repeated in the public square. I believe all members would agree that the repetition of untruths in the public square can seriously impede members in the exercise of their democratic function as legislators and I expect that the hon. members of the House would never stand by and allow that to happen. Therefore, I believe that if there were a clearly defined process for members to correct any errors they had unwillingly stated on record, they would eagerly seize that opportunity.

Like the Minister of Justice's statements on March 1, which I acknowledge were made before the new report was provided, the Minister of Natural Resources's comments after the correction also remain on the record.

So far, the approach of the House and Chair appears to be that members can, if they so choose, rise on a point of order or rise on a question of personal privilege to correct themselves. It seems there is no formal requirement to do so. The problem is that in the case of erroneous empirical facts, they may remain on the record, which is permanent, even after perhaps new research has corrected them. Permanent corrections are possible, however, through the process of seeking a corrigendum. Regrettably, there is little guidance on this point and, indeed, I only find a handful of references to corrigenda in speaker's rulings since 2001. As the parliamentary glossary explains, this is a term used in journals, Debates, committee meetings of proceedings and committee evidence to indicate that a substantive correction has been made to a previous issue.

Beyond clerical corrections to bills and the order paper, there are examples of where a speaker has ordered that a “corrigendum be issued to rectify the error”. I will concede that these have arisen, it seems, primarily in cases where the transcript does not reflect what a member said. However, I assert that there ought to be clarity on whether a member could rise to seek such a correction where new research, for example, has shown that the empirical facts have changed.

As such, it might be appropriate for the procedure and House affairs committee to consider whether or not another mechanism should exist for an ex post correction of Hansard by a member who intervened, limited to empirical findings perhaps, to ensure that those who rely on Hansard are not misled. In other words, I accept that the minister did not know of the corrected data when he first spoke. When he was informed later in the month, it would have been ideal for him to rise on a clarifying point of order or to seek a corrigendum. The premise that I am operating under, of course, is that if the minister had the corrected data, he would have indeed cited it at the time. This is not something he has yet said, and so I realize it is not an entirely safe assumption.

In closing, I believe that this matter is not best resolved by belabouring who exactly said what, or placing the Chair in the position of interpreting the intended meaning of words, something you recently reminded the House was beyond the Chair's purview. Thus, while other members may seek to extend this matter, I believe we are best served by ministers involved reporting the correct numbers to the House as a point of order or seeking to correct themselves through a corrigendum if such is indeed permissible.

The words of ministers of the Crown carry significant weight by virtue of the resources they command and the respect given to their office. That is why I believe they have a special obligation to correct themselves. Moreover, each member of this place surely has an obligation to inform himself or herself of the facts before speaking and to correct himself or herself if erroneous information is presented. If that were not our habit, the force and import of debate in this House would be diminished and the dignity and purpose of this House would be diminished.

From you, Mr. Speaker, I would thus seek some guidance whenever you choose to report back to the House as to what is required when a minister realizes that an error has been made. I would also ask you to consider whether it is possible for members to seek correction of their own interventions in Hansard when it is not merely an error of transcription but rather a correction to an empirical quantity, perhaps with a notation that an amendment has occurred, such as would be appropriate in the cases I cited in my interventions on this matter.

I believe that your guidance on such requirements may be a positive legacy of this matter of privilege.

I thank you and I thank all members for their attention to this matter.

[Privilege, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. In particular, I rise to address certain data offered by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Natural Resources in support of the bill that I believe violates my privileges as a member, and the privileges of all members of this place.

As O'Brien and Bosc note, on page 86 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, privileges may be infringed by “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House by a Minister”.

The case at issue involves a report prepared for the justice department by a research team led by Dr. Anne Crocker of McGill University, entitled “Description and processing of individuals found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder accused of serious violent offences”. This report has been central to the discussions of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this legislation. It was important in the House, as well, during second reading debate. In fact, if we look at the blues from last Wednesday's justice committee meeting alone, we will find Dr. Crocker mentioned by name 10 times.

As one of the few scientists in the House today, I especially value and need correct numbers to properly do my work as an MP; otherwise my work would be impeded.

One thing people have learned over the last few centuries is the value of observation and measurement: the success of empiricism. That is how we have made advances in science and technology. It gives us the ability to have smart government policies, to understand the people and the country they have entrusted us to govern.

I found Dr. Crocker's report helpful in formulating my own thinking on Bill C-54.

As a news story by Laura Stone of Global News reported yesterday afternoon, and thus I am raising this question at the first opportunity, the Department of Justice was provided with the initial version of the report that I mentioned in November of last year. Some of the data in this report was incorrect as the result of a coding error. This is not something for which I would find fault with the government or researchers. Tabulation errors are bound to happen here and there, and in my work as a scientist I have made such mistakes and have had to fix them. In fact, that is how good scientists work. Mistakes are discovered, acknowledged and fixed, and our understanding advances.

What is shocking is that the government was provided with a corrected version of the report from this past March, and despite having the new report, continued to cite from the old report, misleading Parliament and Canadians. The government even went so far as to table the old report in this place after being informed of the corrected report, a report it has yet to table.

Moreover, the government now takes issue with the researchers whom it commissioned to prepare the report, saying their corrections raise questions about the quality of the work, calling it “unreliable”, even though science actually makes progress through a process involving a continual recognition of errors and their corrections. The researchers did the right thing here, and they know what the right numbers are.

While I could go on at length about the need for evidence-based policy-making and how we should not be legislating if we do not have facts to support our propositions, I will confine myself now to the privilege question before us.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, includes, at page 83, a list of items found by the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to be types of contempt. Specifically included on this list is “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. As well, and again I quote, “deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House or a committee”.

Mr. Patrick Baillie of the Advisory Council of the Mental Health Commission of Canada testified before the justice committee this past Monday in response to a question from the member for Brossard—La Prairie, and said:

Regarding the recidivism statistic, there was an unfortunate error that occurred in the initial draft of the report that was provided to the Department of Justice in November of 2012. [...] That error was discovered on March 14th and immediately communicated to the Minister's office, and a revised report was provided on March 18th with that data corrected.

My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, followed this with a clarifying question, to which Mr. Baillie responded:

We became aware of the error on March 14 and communicated that to the minister's office that day. The amended report was then provided to the research division on March 18 with an acknowledgement seeking clarification of what was the nature of the coding error. So the office was aware of that in March.

As Mr. Baillie further testified, and with this I would agree:

I think that it is important on such a serious issue for the committee to have accurate and up-to-date information, and I hope that the report that was provided to the office in March can be made available to the members of this committee for their deliberations on this topic.

It should be clear that reliance on the old report prejudices members of all parties. Indeed, the news article in question quotes the Conservative MP for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley as saying, “If it was tabled in the House of Commons, I assumed it was accurate”.

The initial draft of the report was tabled as part of an order for return in response to question 1169 on the order paper standing in the name of my colleague from Mount Royal. That order for return included the report as an annex with a note stating, “A significantly amended version of this report was provided to the Department of Justice on March 18, 2013...”.

This statement is important because it confirms that the department was made aware of it on the 18th. It is also important because the order for return bears the minister's signature.

Where it gets interesting is that the old report itself was included in response to part of the order paper question asking about sources relied upon by the government in developing Bill C-54. This makes sense because the government can only rely on the evidence it had at the time. However, the question also asked the government separately for several particular pieces of information, including which people who were found NCR released had been convicted of a subsequent offence and what was the nature of the subsequent offence. The government's response was “see annex 1”, which was the old report.

If the government is asked a question and gives an answer, we will assume it is referring to the most up-to-date information that it has. Members would easily conclude that the correct information was included in response to the question and thus the corrected report. As we found out only this week, that was not the case.

While I take issue with the government's choice to table the old report when it had the new corrected report, as a matter of principle, I also take issue with it as a matter of privilege. Simply put, the government should seek to be forthright with Canadians, providing them and their elected representatives with accurate information in a timely fashion as a matter of course. The government has an obligation to do so as per the rules of the House.

On Monday, May 27, the Minister of Natural Resources stood in this place and said the following during debate on Bill C-54:

It is very important that when we talk about what the risk to the public is, we try to get as close as we can to the facts. The facts are: 27.3% of not criminally responsible accused have a past finding of NCR; 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior....Those facts have to be brought into the analytical picture so we get a more objective understanding of what is in fact going on.

That was May 27, yet the minister cited from the old report.

To illustrate the problem with but one example in his intervention, the scary sounding statistic that 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior NCR finding is in fact incorrect. In reality, the number is only 9.5%. The government knew of this fact two months before the statement of the minister.

It is not surprising that in the same debate the leader of the Green Party stated, “I was baffled by the statistics used earlier in the debate by the Minister of Natural Resources...”.

I think many watching that debate were also.

However, where it gets more baffling is the response from the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, wherein he stated:

the Minister of Natural Resources cited a few recidivism statistics, and whether it is 27.3% of NCR accused who have had past findings of NCR, or 4% or 7% as the member stated, what is important in this legislation is that prosecutors would have some additional tools....

What is important is that parliamentarians are provided with the facts. What is important is that this House is not misled.

I submit that the Minister of Natural Resources misled the House in his interventions on May 27, citing crucial statistics that the government previously acknowledged had been since revised. Moreover, I submit that the Minister of Justice misled the House on May 27, as well, when in response to a question from the leader of the Green Party about the Crocker report in particular, he stated:

Mr. Speaker, we have actually commissioned a couple of reports and I referred to some of the statistics in the final report that was given to us in November 2012.

By the Minister's own signature on the order for return on May 27, he acknowledged that an amended report was given to the justice department on March 18. Therefore, he misled the House, by stating on May 27 that the “final” report was “given to us in November 2012”.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling on March 18 of this year, and found on page 14854 of the Debates, you reiterated that:

Our parliamentary practice sets a very high threshold for the Speaker to make a prima facie finding of privilege.

Citing a previous ruling from last year, you reiterated the three findings you must make regarding misleading statements. I will quote from your ruling, Mr. Speaker:

one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, [it must be proven] that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

Briefly going through each element, the Minister of Justice calling the November 2012 report final was misleading when there was a corrected March report. By his own pen, he acknowledged the March report's existence in May. The question he was asked was about the Crocker report in particular, and it was the minister who volunteered the qualifying adjective “final”. I therefore submit that this misled the House, as did the reliance on the old report on the same day in debate by the Minister of Natural Resources.

On that last point, Mr. Speaker, you quoted Speaker Milliken's ruling of April 21, 2005, found at page 5412 of Debates, wherein the former Speaker reminded the House of a key element to consider when finding a prima facie instance of privilege. Specifically, he said:

...whether the minister's responses in any way impeded members in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether the remarks were intentionally misleading.

Mr. Speaker, members are impeded in their functions when they are denied evidence and facts used in crucial arguments for or against legislation. Various members have raised concerns over the statistics involved in this file. It is clear that the member who asked the question to the Minister of Justice that elicited the “final report” answer was upset that she could not further question the Minister of Natural Resources about his statistics from said report, and remarked in this place, “I wish I could have gotten a question to him”.

Those statements of May 27 were right before the bill went to committee, and as I understand it members will be beginning clause-by-clause examination this evening. They have thus been operating with incorrect data before them, an issue raised by witnesses this past Monday. Again, this is something that prejudices all members, regardless of party.

On this point, I refer you to an intervention from the Conservative member for Prince Albert on Bill C-54, when he said:

There has been a limited amount of data on the rates of reoffending by NCR accused persons.

and then:

These reforms will provide the data we consider necessary....

I think that member would be pleased to learn that there is such data and that the government is in possession of it, though whether or not he reaches the same conclusion upon its review is a different story.

As I draw to a close, I return to the issue of the report. I submit that the corrected version was required of this government in its answer to Question No. 1169 to the extent it cited such a report as a source of current, correct data.

Moreover, as the Debates of March 1, before the corrected report was brought to the government's attention, illustrate that the government undertook to provide members with data. In particular, the Minister of Justice cited statistics and said in response to a question, “There are statistics, and I would be glad to share the report with the hon. member”, later again repeating, “Those are statistics and findings that have been researched. I would be pleased, of course, to share this with the hon. member in more detail”.

I do not believe the House or committee sought more information from the minister of the government because we took the minister at his word to provide the data he and his department had. I believe the government undertook this obligation of its own accord and therefore created an impression in the minds of members that it would be forthright with the data. As we now know, it was not.

Mr. Speaker, while I realize such matters, if found by you to be prima facie breaches of privilege, are referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there are other avenues here that may be more helpful. While I do believe you should find that the House and committee have been misled by the minister cited, I am more concerned about the remedy.

While I doubt the government would be willing to put Bill C-54 on hold until it had data it considered reliable and accurate with regard to persons found non-criminally responsible, I would accept this. Moreover, I would even consider abandoning this privilege claim if the government were to table the new report in the House and explain why it did not choose to do so when it was first made aware of the correction. While I realize other members affected by this situation may have a different approach and wish to see this at the Procedure and House Affairs committee, I simply need to have the correct numbers placed before the House.

In closing, all members of this place, regardless of party, benefit from having facts and data before them when legislating and, indeed, I would argue we all have a right to know. The government knew, but kept members in the dark and, by its own admission, made an effort to conceal.

This is something that ought to be sanctioned as, if left uncorrected, remains a standing affront to the privileges of all members of this place.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the NDP is really serious about the motion today, I think it is disrespectful to the Supreme Court because the question is in front of the Supreme Court now, what has to be done if we want to change the Senate in different ways.

I would say the NDP cannot be serious. If that is the case, we should not be debating it in the House today.

[Foreign Affairs, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this Monday, June 3, the landmark arms trade treaty will be open for signature. This treaty will help prevent the sale of conventional weapons to conflict zones and outlaw states, such as Syria. Canada voted in favour of the treaty at the UN, despite drawing criticism from other countries for being an obstacle to a robust treaty. However, the rumour is that Canada now will not sign or ratify the treaty.

Will the government now state clearly that it will sign the arms trade treaty and stand up for those victimized by violence in conflict zones?

[Asthma, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, May marks Asthma Awareness Month. Asthma is a chronic lung disease that causes shortness of breath, tightness in the chest, and wheezing and coughing. Asthma affects more than three million Canadians, including me.

Six out of ten people are living with uncontrolled asthma, leading to a huge loss in quality of life, productivity in the workplace and attendance at schools. It is estimated that 250 Canadians die from asthma every year. Eighty per cent of those deaths are preventable with proper education.

The good news is that asthma can be controlled. Those affected by asthma can live active, symptom-free lives by becoming informed, avoiding triggers and taking medication as needed.

I applaud the work of groups such as the Asthma Society of Canada, whose mission is to educate the public about asthma, promote awareness and encourage those affected by asthma to live healthy, active and productive lives.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since it is quite a chore to be here until midnight, I would like to hear relevant debate. I am not even sure what bill my hon. colleague is talking about. I hope he knows.

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, from listening to the speeches from the government side, there seems to be a heavy emphasis on the civic and political side of history, history that really has a direct civic and political relevance. However, there are other important aspects to Canadian history which are important to emphasize. I am a little worried that this new renaming the museum and the emphasis put on this Canadian museum of history is going to miss some of this.

This goes back to my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, who mentioned a small museum and asked whether it would receive funding. There is a very important museum in my riding, the Canadian Museum of Health Care, which is the only museum of its type in the country. It is short of funds. It needs to find funding to preserve the history of health care in Canada. It has an enormous collection.

Will this emphasis on the civic and political side of history miss an important part of history? In this case it is health care, but it could also be science and technology. Could my colleague address this question?

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question because I am little concerned with the word my hon. colleague from the government side just used, “showcase”.

I do understand it is important to show the world, the people in the country, and our young people the great things about our country and our history. However, one of the valuable things about history is the ability to learn from our mistakes and to admit our mistakes. If we simply use the word “showcase”, we may be potentially not reaping the maximum benefit of remembering our history.

I was wondering what my hon. colleague thinks about that.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Davenport brings up a very important point, which is that we are somehow unable to account for $3.1 billion the government has spent.

My hon. colleague is right that the government, or any of us, should not brag too much about all the great things we have done when there are problems we need to solve. It is important to advocate for the things we try to do and that we believe in, so we have to cut a little slack to anybody who stands up and speaks and tries to advocate for a certain position.

On the subject of the $3.1 billion, I think it will be very important to sit down and try to find out why it is we have $3.1 billion missing and to make sure that Parliament has a really good picture of what spending it is approving on exactly what programs. That is the recommendation the experts at committee and in this House have given to avoid this happening in the future.

We really need to know exactly what programs we are approving when we vote. Many people who study Parliament believe that we should reform the approval process for spending.