Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: minister alleged to have misled the House

May 5, 2016

Debates, pp. 2955–6

On April 22, 2016, Luc Thériault (Montcalm) rose on a question of privilege alleging that Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport) and Kate Young (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport) had deliberately misled the House by making false statements concerning litigation involving the Province of Quebec and Air Canada. In particular, Mr. Thériault claimed that statements pertaining to Air Canada’s obligation to keep aircraft maintenance operations in the province of Quebec had been refuted by the government in that province. He also argued that, as the House had been misinformed prior to the votes for time allocation and second reading of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, the legitimacy of the votes were in doubt. In response, the minister asserted that his statements were accurate and that the matter was a question of debate rather than privilege. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Anthony Rota) took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

On May 5, 2016, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded members that his role was not to judge the content or accuracy of statements made but to determine whether a member had deliberately misled the House. The Speaker reiterated that to do so, it must be proven that the statement was misleading, that the member making the statement knew that the statement was incorrect when it was made and that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement. Having concluded that there was no evidence that the minister intended to mislead the House, the Speaker ruled that the matter was not a prima facie question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 22, 2016, by the hon. member for Montcalm regarding alleged misleading statements made in the House by the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport with respect to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Montcalm for having raised this matter, as well as the Minister of Transport for his comments.

In presenting his case, the member for Montcalm alleged that both the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport deliberately misled the House by repeatedly providing inaccurate information with respect to Bill C-10 in response to oral questions and during debate.

In particular, the member claimed that the statements, which pertained to the status of litigation regarding Air Canada’s obligation to keep aircraft maintenance operations in the province of Quebec, had been refuted by the government of that province. The federal government’s assertions, he argued, led members of the House to make decisions in relation to Bill C-10 based on false information.

The Minister of Transport, for his part, stood by his statements, while pointing out that the federal government was not privy to the negotiations between Air Canada and the government of the Province of Quebec. He concluded that, in his opinion, the matter raised did not constitute a question of privilege, but was more a question of debate.

The House of Commons is a debating chamber where opposing views are passionately held and vigorously defended, and where opposition members have a duty to hold the government to account. Consequently, the need for members’ access to truthful and accurate information is primordial and goes to the heart of their role and privileges as legislators.

In fact, feisty exchanges during debate and disagreements as to facts are not infrequent; the member for Montcalm acknowledged this when he stated that he understood “that disagreements between members are to be expected and are fodder for debate”.

Not surprisingly then, the allegation that a member deliberately misled the House is a most serious one. In adjudicating such matters, the Speaker has a defined but very limited role, one which prevents the chair from judging the content or accuracy of statements made in the House.

As Speaker, my role is strictly limited to determining whether, in the course of debate, a member has deliberately misled the House.

Successive Speakers have clearly set out the three conditions that must be demonstrated in order for a Speaker to arrive at such a finding. My predecessor outlined them in his ruling of April 29, 2015, when he stated at page 13197 of Debates :

…first, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the member making the statement has to know that the statement was incorrect when it was made. Finally, it needs to be proven that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

As members can appreciate, the threshold is very high, purposely so given the seriousness of the allegation and its potential consequences for members individually and collectively. From this, it stands to reason that a finding of a prima facie case of privilege is an exceedingly rare occurrence in cases with respect to disputed facts.

Speaker Jerome understood that such situations are rarely grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege when he stated on June 4, 1975, on page 6431 of Debates that:

…a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions, and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

In the present case, no evidence has been brought forward to demonstrate either that the Minister of Transport knew that the statements he made were misleading at the time that they were made or that he intended to mislead the House.

Therefore, while the member for Montcalm has illustrated that there is a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of certain facts, it is clear to the Chair that the threshold for determining that the House was deliberately misled has not been met. As such, the Chair cannot conclude that members have been impeded in the performance of their parliamentary functions. Accordingly, I find that this matter is a dispute as to facts and not a prima facie question of privilege.