SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Apr/10/24 4:32:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege, and this is concerning false information contained in the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2340, which was filed by the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. While it may seem unusual for me, as a Conservative member, to be rising about a government response to a question filed by the NDP, this is not just about the member who filed the question but about all members of the House who suffer and whose rights are infringed upon when the government tables information which is clearly false and inaccurate in the House. The response to Question No. 2340, which was tabled by the government on Monday, contains information that is clearly false, which is proven by the government's own records. The question asked was: ...since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding? The response, signed by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, says: ...since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys or Costco. We know that this is not true. The government took a lot of pride in announcing millions of dollars for fridges for Loblaws. If one types the word “Loblaws” into the government's proactive disclosure portal, under grants and contributions, one will see that there are three separate listings for government grants and contributions to Loblaws between November 7, 2019, and April 26, 2021. The most significant of these is a contribution for $12,019,723 on November 7, 2019, from Environment and Climate Change Canada for low global warming potential refrigerant conversions in supermarket systems. In other words, it was $12 million to Loblaws to buy new fridges. That one entry, by itself, listed in the proactive disclosure database, proves that the government's response to Question No. 2034 contains false information. In addition, a quick search on the government's own website will show us that on October 24, 2019, it gave $15,803,515 to Costco for “Energy Savings Rebate Program Funding Regarding Canadian Appliance Source”. It is crystal clear, from the government's own data, that the response in the tabled document by the minister on Monday contains false information. This is not a matter of debate or opinion. This is proven by the government's own reporting on proactive disclosure. I had wished that the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford had raised the question of privilege on his own, but as we all know, his party has an agreement with the government that stunts its ability to criticize the Liberals or to point out the hypocrisy of the NDP supporting a Liberal government that is giving handouts to Loblaws and Costco. When the House of Commons is provided with untrue information or lies, all members of the House suffer and all members have the right to receive accurate information. What the government did here is a breach to all members' rights. On page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, it clearly states that it is a prima facie case of contempt when someone “deliberately attempts to mislead the House or a committee”. While the record will show that Speakers have been reluctant to intervene on the basis of a quality of an answer or a non-answer, this is a case of the government deliberately withholding the truth from the House. On December 16, 1980, on page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker said: 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.... Should you find a prima facie case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

675 words

Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Apr/10/24 4:37:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the tradition in the House has been to allow the opportunity for the member who has actually asked the question to raise the question of privilege. I find this a bit discourteous. That being said, we are currently looking at this, and I would like to reserve the opportunity for the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to rise on this question of privilege a little later on.

71 words

Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/10/24 5:49:40 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton in rising on a question of privilege.

15 words

Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Apr/10/24 5:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege from the 63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was tabled earlier today. While the main thrust of the report concerned the prima facie contempt, which the House referred to the committee last year related to foreign interference directed toward the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other colleagues, it is my view that the report lays out grounds for finding a new prima facie contempt. Namely, that the Minister of National Defence provided misleading evidence to the committee and misleading comments in the House. I should first offer some context. After the House agreed, on May 10, 2023, to refer to the committee that question of privilege, which was sparked by a report in The Globe and Mail based on a July 2021 intelligence assessment, it came to light, through special rapporteur David Johnston's subsequently published report that: In addition to the memorandum in question, CSIS sent an issues management note (IMU) to the then Minister of Public Safety, his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister in May 2021, noting that there was intelligence that the PRC intended to target [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills], another MP, and their family in China (if any). As the Speaker will recall, having been a member of the procedure and House affairs committee at the time, this led to new areas of important questions for our witnesses and especially for the public safety minister. In the portion of the 63rd report summarizing the minister's appearances before the committee, we may read that the minister “understands that CSIS authorized the IMU to be shown to him, but he never received it.” The associated footnote in the committee's report points to the minister's statement responding to one of my questions, which is found at page 22 of the committee evidence for June 1, 2023. It reads: It was authorized by CSIS to be shown to me, but they determined.... The director determined that this was not information the minister needed to know, so I was never notified of the existence of that intelligence, nor was it ever shared with me. On the following page, one may read his further statements. When pressed about ministerial responsibility, he said: This is a situation where it's an operational decision of CSIS as to what information needs to be passed along to government. In this case, they made an operational decision that this was not required. Two years later, when it was leaked to the press, that information was subsequently shared with me. At the time, I had no knowledge that it existed. I had no knowledge that it was not being shared with me, because I wasn't aware that the information was available. CSIS, quite appropriately, made a determination that they didn't believe it was necessary to pass that information along. The minister's version of events was soon contradicted. Elsewhere in the 63rd report, in the portion summarizing the testimony of CSIS director David Vigneault, we read that he: ...told the Committee that in May 2021 an IMU was sent from CSIS to the Minister of Public Safety...warning that [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills] and his family were being targeted by the PRC. The IMU included a specific directive that it be forwarded to the Minister. The purpose of the IMU was to highlight the information and bring it to the Minister’s attention. When asked whether the information contained in the May 2021 IMU was information that [the minister] did not need to know, Mr. Vigneault stated that “the fact that we did an issue management note speaks to the notion that we wanted to highlight the information” to [the minister]. The associated footnote directs the reader to the following comments by Mr. Vigneault, at page 4 of the evidence from the committee's evening meeting for June 13, 2023, in response to my questions: It's also important that when we see we have something of high importance...we have instituted this process called an “information management note”. That would be shared to bring attention to something more specifically. That was the purpose of this note. It was to bring it to the attention of the people to whom it was destined to go. Another footnote points to the following answer, at page 7 of the evidence, in response to a question from the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable: “As I mentioned a little earlier, CSIS and I conveyed the information to the Department of Public Safety along with the very specific directive to forward it to the minister... it's important for the committee to understand that we shared the intelligence and the briefing note.” In spite of this, the minister doubled down on his position. During question period on June 14, 2023, the day following Mr. Vigneault's committee appearance, in response to a question from his coalition partner, the hon. member for Burnaby South, the minister said, at page 15981 of the Debates, “Mr. Vigneault did not send his note to me”. Suffice to say there was no “operational decision” that was “appropriately made”, or otherwise, by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to keep the minister of public safety in the dark about a serious matter of national security, namely the threats from a foreign government directed toward a senior, long-serving member of the House of Commons. However, this analysis does not rely exclusively on the evidence of Mr. Vigneault. According to the 63rd report, the minister's then deputy minister, Rob Stewart, did not recall an operational decision not to inform the minister about the IMU. More pointedly, the IMU in question has been released by CSIS under the Access to Information Act and was subsequently tabled by Conservatives at the procedure and House affairs committee. The committee has made reference to its possession of the IMU in the following comment at footnote 98 of the 63rd report: “The Committee notes that, in documents that it received, the May 2021 CSIS IMU was sent to [the minister], his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister”. A copy of the publicly released version of the IMU has, for good measure, been annexed to the Conservatives' supplemental opinions in the 63rd report, so that the House is seized with a copy of it. While the document is heavily redacted, it is still plain to see on its face, in two separate locations: “Distribution...confined exclusively to: DM Public Safety, Minister Public Safety, MIN PS CoS, NSIA.” Recall that the minister said here on the floor of the House that the note was not sent to him. The facts are clear: The Minister of National Defence misled the procedure and House affairs committee, and he misled the House. Page 82 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes among established grounds of contempt, “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. Similar comments can be found on pages 153 and 1,081, for example. As explained in numerous Speaker's rulings, to establish a prima facie contempt in respect of deliberately misleading statements three, elements must be made out. First, it must be proven that the statement in question was misleading. Second, it must be established that the person making the statement knew at the time that it was misleading. Third, in making the statement, it must be established that the statement was offered with the intention to mislead. It is clear from the evidence I have cited that the statement was misleading. As for the other two elements of that test, the correct analysis is the following one. On its face, the minister's testimony is, frankly, absurd. Why would CSIS issue an IMU to the minister on intelligence about which an operational decision had been made to not share it with him? This defies common sense and lacks all credibility. After the minister was caught out on this deception, he appeared before the committee a second time, on October 24, 2023, and offered this weak explanation: “I assumed that if the director did not share information with me, then he didn't require that I see it.” Without more, we are not satisfied with the minister's explanation. Not only was the minister's assumption incorrect. It was, I would submit, a faulty one, too. Certainly, the minister was in no place to speak so authoritatively or with such conviction that CSIS had “made an operational decision” to keep him in the dark. The minister used very specific words. He was unequivocal in his words. Moreover, the minister made the claim repeatedly. Taken together, it is evident his choice of clear, convincing and unequivocal wording was deliberate. He showed no hesitation, and he did not shade his words with doubt or otherwise represent that he was speaking on the basis of an assumption. Put simply, he did not misspeak. He actively misled the procedure and House affairs committee, and he actively misled this House. Speaker Milliken stated, on February 1, 2002, at page 8581 of the Debates: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The integrity of information here, too, is in doubt. To this, it is worth adding the words of one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, from a ruling delivered March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates: This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten. What is serious here is that these exchanges at committee appear to have been meant to deflect from the shocking fact that the minister of public safety, as he was, through his own inaction and omission, was unaware of intelligence concerning the targeting of a senior long-serving member of Parliament by a hostile foreign state, intelligence that CSIS had specifically sent to him as a matter of high importance. This constituted a serious breakdown in the flow of information and intelligence under the minister's watch. As the minister, he bore responsibility for this breakdown. Instead of accepting responsibility, the minister deflected blame to the director of CSIS for a supposed “operational decision” that had been made to keep him in the dark. The minister had to have known that no such “operational decision” had been made, yet he said so anyway. The minister had a duty to be truthful in his testimony to the committee. He was not truthful. He misled the committee in a self-serving attempt to evade accountability for a massive failure that occurred under his watch as minister of public safety. Misleading a parliamentary committee is a serious matter. Indeed, it can be a contempt of Parliament. That it was a minister of the Crown who did so makes this even more grave. It simply cannot be overlooked. Indeed, as Speaker Milliken ruled, on November 6, 2003, at page 9229 of the Debates: However tempting the invitation, the Speaker cannot presume to articulate the expectations that committees have of the witnesses who come before them. Suffice it to say that I believe all hon. members will agree with me when I say simply that committees of the House and, by extension, the House of Commons itself, must be able to depend on the testimony they receive, whether from public officials or private citizens. This testimony must be truthful and complete. When this proves not to be the case, a grave situation results, a situation that cannot be treated lightly. On February 1, 2002, after concerns about the statements of another Liberal minister of national defence, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege, commenting, at page 8582 of the Debates: ...I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. Similarly, your predecessor ruled, on March 3, 2014, at page 3431 of the Debates, that a prima facie case of privilege existed: ...the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House. In the present case, the House, again, is possessed of two versions of events by virtue of the 63rd report. Before concluding, I should note that while the statements of concern were made last spring, the matter is actually being raised in the House at the earliest opportunity. I would refer the Chair, in that regard, to Speaker Milliken's February 10, 2011, ruling on page 8030 of the Debates: The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was not mistaken in his assertion that any and all statements made in committee, even when those have been repeated verbatim in the House, remain the business of the committee until such time as it elects to report them officially to the House. This is a long-standing practice.... Furthermore, while a copy of an internal CIDA document obtained through an access to information request was provided to me, it was not tabled in the House and, thus, is not officially before it.... Speaker Milliken continued: It may sound overly technical but the reality is that when adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair is obliged to reference material fully and properly before the House. With regard to statements made by the minister, this material is limited to a few answers to oral questions and one answer to a written question, not to any comments in committee. A week following that ruling, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented its sixth report, which referred to the committee testimony in question as well as provided a copy of the document obtained through the access to information process. On the strength of this information with which the House had become seized, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege on March 9, 2011, at page 8842 of the Debates. The same circumstances prevail here with the 63rd report now placing properly before the House the necessary evidence to make out the relevant tests for the question of privilege I am raising. Should the Speaker agree with me that the air again needs to be cleared because the current Minister of National Defence appears to have committed a contempt by deliberately misleading the procedure and house affairs committee, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to task that committee with assessing this specific problem and reporting its views back to the House.

2597 words