Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: Minister alleged to have deliberately misled the House; prima facie

February 1, 2002

Debates, pp. 8581-2

On January 31, 2002, Brian Pallister (Portage–Lisgar) rose on a question of privilege to charge that Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence) was in contempt of the House, having made contradictory statements, with the intent of deliberately misleading the House, on two separate occasions about the precise moment at which he had been informed about the involvement of Canadian troops in the taking of prisoners in Afghanistan. He added that, outside the Chamber, the Minister had admitted to the media that he had indeed misled the House, but that he had not apologized to the House. For his part, the Minister stated that it had not been his intention to mislead the House in providing information which, at the time, he believed to be correct. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

On February 1, 2002, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that he was prepared to accept the Minister’s assertion that he had had no intention of misleading the House. He added, however, that the contradictory statements made by the Minister in the House, a characterization the Minister did not dispute, left the House with two versions of events, and thus merited further consideration by an appropriate committee to clarify the matter. Accordingly, he invited Mr. Pallister to move his motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Portage–Lisgar concerning statements made in the House by the Minister of National Defence. I would like to thank the hon. Member for his presentation and the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough for his comments.

I also appreciated the interventions of the hon. Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie, the hon. Member for Acadie–Bathurst, the Rt. Hon. Member for Calgary Centre and the hon. Member for Lakeland, and I want to thank the hon. Minister of National Defence for his statement.

The hon. Member for Portage–Lisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the Minister’s responses in Question Period on two successive days and alluded to a number of statements made to the media by the Minister. Other hon. Members rose to support those arguments citing various parliamentary authorities including Beauchesne’s 6th edition and Marleau and Montpetit. In this regard, I commend to the House a citation from Erskine May, 22nd edition, quoted by the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough as follows:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

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. Furthermore, in this case, as hon. Members have pointed out, integrity of information is of paramount importance since it directly concerns the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada’s participation in the war against terrorism.

I have carefully reviewed all the interventions on this issue and the related media reports and tapes referred to in those exchanges. I have also examined the Minister’s replies during Question Period and the statement he made in reply to these allegations.

In response to the arguments of opposition Members on this question of privilege, the Minister of National Defence stated categorically, and I quote, “At no time have I intended to mislead this House—” and then went on to explain the context in which he had made statements that ultimately proved to be contradictory.

As the hon. Member for Acadie–Bathurst has pointed out, in deciding on alleged questions of privilege, it is relatively infrequent for the Chair to find prima facie privilege; it is much more likely that the Speaker will characterize the situation as “a dispute as to facts”. But in the case before us, there appears to be in my opinion no dispute as to the facts. I believe that both the Minister and other hon. Members recognize that two versions of events have been presented to the House.

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the Minister’s assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. I refer hon. Members to Marleau and Montpetit at page 67:

There are… affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges… the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties…

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. Members and in view of the gravity of the matter, 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. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Portage–Lisgar to move his motion.

Mr. Pallister moved that the question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and debate on the motion continued until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.^[2] On February 4, 2002, the House resumed debate on the motion, which was shortly followed by the commencement of debate on a proposed amendment until a motion to adjourn the debate was moved and adopted.^[3] On February 5, 6 and 7, the House agreed by unanimous consent to adjourn debate on the privilege motion.^[4] Later during the sitting of February 7, the House agreed by unanimous consent to proceed immediately to put all questions necessary to dispose of the question of privilege. The amendment to the motion was defeated on a recorded division, following which the House agreed to the main motion on division.^[5] On March 22, 2002, the Committee presented its Fiftieth Report to the House, exonerating the Minister.^[6]