Twitter
Facebook
VideosMay
- MP
conMay 17, 2012 12:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'AppelleThere were three minutes remaining before question period for questions and comments following the speech by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert.
Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 12:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order please.
This is not a matter of debate. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has pointed out that the member for Vancouver South made a particular heckle during a question. If the member for Vancouver South wishes to address that she may, or she may leave it up to me to deal with.
Does the hon. member for Vancouver South wish to reply to the point of order?
- MPconMay 17, 2012 12:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Rasa Jukneviciene, Minister of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:50 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:35 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The member is out of time.
The hon. Minister of Health.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:20 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order. Order, please.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
- MPconMay 17, 2012 11:15 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 12:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I see several members rising for petitions. Sometimes in the past members have taken quite a long time to summarize very briefly their petitions. I would ask that members really try to keep their remarks short so we can accommodate everybody.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 12:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order, please. I have not heard anything that is a point of order yet. Is the member asking him to table something?
- MPconMay 16, 2012 12:00 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway has the floor.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:55 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order, please.
The hon. Minister of Health.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 11:50 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 5:55 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare the motion carried.
I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, there will be no private members' business this evening. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 5:45 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 5:35 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare Motion No. 13 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 5:30 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare the motion defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 13.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 5:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare Motion No. 11 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 5:15 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare Motion No. 10 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 11.
- MPconMay 14, 2012 5:50 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I am going to stop the hon. member there as he has gone over his time. At this time we will open up the floor for questions and comments.
The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.
- MPconMay 14, 2012 5:30 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I will stop the member there to allow the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington to respond.
- MPconMay 14, 2012 5:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I am afraid the hon. member's 10 minutes is over, but luckily we have 10 minutes of questions and comments so I am sure there will be some of those.
The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
- MPconMay 14, 2012 4:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how the proceedings will unfold. Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. The debate will end after four hours or when no member rises to speak.
Pursuant to the order made on Friday, May 11, 2012, the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.
We will now begin tonight's take note debate.
- MPconMay 14, 2012 4:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
- MPconMay 14, 2012 12:25 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
(Motion agreed to)
- MPconMay 11, 2012 9:20 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
When statements by members started we were on questions and comments. The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
- MPconMay 11, 2012 9:15 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Is that agreed?
- MPconMay 11, 2012 9:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order, please. The hon. member knows that members are supposed to provide a succinct summary and she has had the floor now for almost two minutes. We better move on to accommodate everybody.
The hon. member for Kitchener--Centre.
- MPconMay 11, 2012 9:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
- MPconMay 11, 2012 9:00 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The hon. member for Repentigny.
- MPconMay 10, 2012 12:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order. The House appreciates the clarification.
- MPconMay 10, 2012 12:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The Chair has notice of two points of order but we will do the Thursday question first and then hear the points of order.
The hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.
- MPconMay 10, 2012 11:45 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
- MPconMay 10, 2012 11:25 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
- MPconMay 10, 2012 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
There is no consent.
- MPconMay 09, 2012 4:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Pursuant to Standing Order 98 the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 16, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
- MPconMay 09, 2012 3:40 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
- MPconMay 09, 2012 3:30 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-314 under private members' business.
- MPconMay 09, 2012 3:25 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion M-331 under private members' business.
- MPconMay 09, 2012 3:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare the motion defeated.
- MPconMay 09, 2012 3:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare the motion carried.
- MPconMay 09, 2012 2:30 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order, please. At this time and in accordance with past precedence, as stated at page 571 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, I have no choice but to interrupt the bells since the motion that the debate be now adjourned has lapsed.
- MPconMay 08, 2012 12:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has six minutes left to conclude her speech.
- MPconMay 08, 2012 12:00 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The member is out of time. The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
- MPconMay 08, 2012 11:50 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order, please. The member should know to address his questions through the Speaker and not directly at other members or ministers.
The hon. government House leader.
- MPconMay 08, 2012 11:35 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order. The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie has the floor.
- MPconMay 08, 2012 11:25 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East.
- MPconMay 07, 2012 12:30 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Is that agreed?
- MPconMay 07, 2012 12:25 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I simply want to remind hon. members that they are not allowed to read petitions in their entirety.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
- MPconMay 07, 2012 12:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
- MPconMay 07, 2012 12:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 5, 2012, by the member for Toronto Centre about statements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the Associate Minister of National Defence, regarding the proposed acquisition of F-35 fighter jets.
I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the hon. members for Richmond—Arthabaska, Scarborough—Guildwood, Malpeque, and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their comments.
In raising this question of privilege, the member for Toronto Centre contended that an opinion attributed to two government departments in chapter 2 of the Auditor General's spring 2012 report to Parliament was at variance with statements the Prime Minister and certain ministers have made to the House on the same matter, namely that the government accepts all the recommendations and conclusions in the Auditor General's report. The part of the report that is in question reads as follows:
...National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada disagree with the conclusions set out in paragraphs 2.80 and 2.81.
Based on this, the member for Toronto Centre claimed that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, as well as the Associate Minister of National Defence had presented “two completely different and contradictory versions of reality“ to the House. Noting that it is a fundamental obligation of the government to tell the House the truth, the member stated that the government seemed to be attempting to deliberately confuse the House.
With respect to the cost projections of the F-35 fighter jets, the hon. member for Toronto Centre also claimed that, if the government does indeed fully accept all of the Auditor General’s conclusions and recommendations, then it is, in fact, agreeing with the Auditor General’s assessment that “some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians” and thus that Parliament had been misled. He went further, alleging that ministers were aware of the facts and thus knew that what they were saying in the House was not true. In reply, the government House leader explained that the departmental responses to the Auditor General’s conclusions were those of the departmental officials, rather than the government itself. He said, “The position of the government is not the position taken by the officials in those departments.”
The charges being levelled against the Prime Minister and three ministers are serious. They go to the very essence of the need for clarity in our proceedings and the need to ensure that information provided to the House by the government is such that the ability of members to carry out their duty of holding the government to account is not diminished or impeded.
The issue of ministerial responsibility and accountability has also been raised by several members. The Chair would like to set aside this aspect of the matter immediately. As all members know, constitutional issues of this nature are not matters for parliamentary procedure, and they are well beyond the range of matters the Speaker can be asked to rule upon.
In reviewing the other arguments being advanced, it would seem that the Chair is being asked to ascertain whether what was said in the House was truthful. However, I must remind members that in such circumstances the Chair's role is clear and indeed very limited.
In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 510 it states:
The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.
There are in addition many relevant rulings from my predecessor Speaker Milliken, and I will quote from several of them. The first, from January 31, 2008, is found at pages 2434 and 2435 of Debates. In it, he stated:
Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge. The same holds true with respect to the breadth of a minister’s answer to a question in the House: this is not for the Speaker to determine.
Again on February 26, 2004, at page 1076 of Debates, he confirmed:
As hon. members know, it is not the Speaker's role to adjudicate on matters of fact. This is something on which the House itself can form an opinion during debate.
The member for Toronto Centre himself acknowledged this parliamentary convention when he said, “While it is not for the Speaker to determine what is fact”.
So what then are the parameters of the Speaker’s role when faced with such allegations?
Speaker Milliken summed it up quite succinctly on April 21, 2005, when he said at page 5412 of Debates:
In the present case, I must determine whether the minister's responses in any way impeded members in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether the remarks were intentionally misleading—
Then, on January 31, 2008, Speaker Milliken again had cause to state, at page 2435 of Debates:
As hon. members know, before finding a prima facie breach of privilege in situations such as these, the Speaker must be convinced that deliberately misleading statements were made to the House.
It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: 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, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.
It is with this very high threshold in mind that I have carefully reviewed all the interventions on this matter, as well as statements made to the House and replies given during oral questions by the Prime Minister and the various cabinet ministers involved.
With regard to the first argument advanced by the member for Toronto Centre, the Chair has difficulty accepting the view that because ministers are stating that they accept the findings and agree with the conclusions of the Auditor General, which include, in part, a statement written by the Auditor General relating that two departments disagree with him, that this in and of itself is evidence that these same ministers have deliberately misled the House and intended, in doing so, to impede members in the performance of their duties.
What the Chair has before it is a statement by the government House leader that, having taken into account the findings of the Auditor General, the government has decided that it rejects the position previously taken by officials as conveyed in the report. As I pointed out earlier, the minister has stated rather starkly that “the position of the government is not the position taken by the officials in those departments”. Accordingly, with respect to this aspect of the question, the Chair cannot find grounds for a prima facie finding of privilege.
The second argument made by the member for Toronto Centre was that because the government agreed with the Auditor General's assessment that “Some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians”, this meant that the House was misled. He further claimed “...for a long time, the members of the executive council knew that what they were saying in the House of Commons was not true”.
In looking at this aspect of the question, the Chair must return to the words of the Auditor General himself, whose report states categorically in paragraph 2.80 that “Some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians”. However, let us not forget the very high threshold required before there can be a finding of prima facie privilege. As I said a moment ago, it must be clearly established that in making the statement complained of, the member in question knew it was incorrect and intended to mislead the House in making it.
It is relevant to note, in reference to this latter point, that the Auditor General also says, in the very same paragraph of his report, and here I am repeating a passage the member for Toronto Centre himself read to the House:
Problems relating to development of the F-35 were not fully communicated to decision makers—meaning ministers—and risks presented to decision makers did not reflect the problems the JSF program was experiencing at the time. Full life-cycle costs were understated in the estimates provided to support the government's 2010 decision to buy the F-35.
Obviously, the Auditor General has raised concerns about the information provided. He is pointing out that in his opinion less than complete information was provided to ministers and to members.
On this point, drawing from a somewhat analogous case from 2004 found in Debates at page 1047 in reference to statements contained in a report of the Auditor General indicating that Parliament had been “misinformed” and “bypassed”, Speaker Milliken pointed out that no evidence had been produced to show that “departmental officials deliberately intended to deceive their superiors and so obstruct hon. members in the performance of their duties”.
Not only has the government House leader stated that the government agrees with the Auditor General in this respect, the minister has gone even further stating:
—as a government, as ministers, as a cabinet, we have a right and an expectation that the advice we receive is something on which we can rely. This is something that, in this case, the Auditor General made some findings on. We happen to agree with those findings in the end.
So, ultimately, the Chair has before it two clear statements: the first contained in the report of the Auditor General that some costs were not fully provided to ministers and members; and the second, by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons accepting the conclusions of the Auditor General.
In my view, no clear evidence has been presented beyond this and, thus, the Chair has no choice but to conclude that it cannot find that ministers knew or believed that what they were telling the House was not true or that it was intended to be misleading. In other words, the criteria of demonstrating that ministers knew their statements to the House were incorrect, and that they intended to mislead the House, has not been met.
Accordingly, bound as I am by the very narrow parameters that apply in these situations, and without any evidence that the House was deliberately mislead, I cannot arrive at a finding of prima facie privilege in this case.
The House will be aware, however, that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has, as part of its ongoing mandate, the responsibility to review and report on all reports to the Auditor General. The House knows that the committee is seized of the report that has given rise to this question of privilege and is at present proceeding with its examination of the report.
I remind the House that a determination that a breach of privilege is not prima facie at this time in no way interferes with the right of any hon. member to raise a new question of privilege should the committee arrive at findings that shed new light on this matter, or should other pertinent information become available.
I thank members for their attention.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 17 Next »
follow
Flickr