SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 307

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24
The Speaker
  • May/2/24 3:32:23 p.m.
  • Watch
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 10, 2024, by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the Minister of National Defence. The question of privilege is based on his reading of the 63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on April 10, 2024. According to the member, the testimony provided by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service director, David Vigneault, and by former deputy minister Rob Stewart in regard to an issues management note on foreign interference efforts and the content of the briefing note itself contradict the minister’s persistent denial of receiving the said note. As such, the member argued that the minister deliberately misled the House and the committee. For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader countered that the minister had not misled the House, and that his statements in committee and in the House had remained consistent. The parliamentary secretary also noted that the 63rd report made no reference to contradictory statements provided to the committee concerning this matter. I have mentioned, in my ruling of February 15, 2024, at page 21158 of the Debates, that three elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House, namely: It must be proven that the statement was misleading; it must be established that, when making a statement, the member knew it to be incorrect; and finally, it must be demonstrated that the member intended to mislead the House. Like my predecessors, I have also remarked in a ruling on a similar matter, on December 13, 2023, that these three conditions are a very high threshold, and rightfully so. The charge of deliberately misleading the House or one of its committees is a serious one as it touches on the integrity of the member. With these observations and established conventions in mind, I have carefully examined the statements that were made concerning this matter, as well as the entire content of the 63rd report. The Chair must acknowledge the fact that the minister has been consistent in his statements that he did not receive the note in question. This is an assertion that the CSIS director seems to accept, based on the committee’s report. According to the report, at page 85, “Mr. Vigneault’s understanding...that it was clear that [the minister] never saw the IMU and that he had no reason to doubt [the minister] on that point.” Faced with a similar situation, on April 29, 2015, at page 13198 of the Debates, one of my predecessors said: With no evidence presented to the contrary, the conventions of this House dictate that, 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. The ruling continues by quoting Speaker Milliken's words from page 10462 of the April 16, 2002, Debates. They are worth repeating: If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperilled. It appears to the Chair that the current matter is a dispute as to the facts and that it constitutes a matter for debate, not a question of privilege. The Chair wishes to make one final observation in relation to a comment made by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in his April 10 intervention. He suggested that by including a document in his party’s supplementary opinion, the House would now be seized with it. To this, I would refer members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 995: Committees are not responsible for the content of these opinions. They are not, strictly speaking, part of the report. The authors of these opinions alone are responsible for their content. I appreciate the efforts invested by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and his colleagues from the procedure and house affairs committee in considering the question of privilege related to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and to other members. They obviously did not take their responsibility lightly. I thank members for their attention.
762 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24
Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)
  • May/2/24 3:37:50 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in this place and bring the voice of my constituents who are back home in Nova Scotia. Today we are debating really important legislation—
34 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border