ENGLISH VERSION

Check against delivery

RULING ON THE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE RAISED ON FEBRUARY 25, 2014, BY THE HOUSE LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION (MR. CULLEN) REGARDING STATEMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE BY THE MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGASTREETSVILLE (MR. BUTT)

March 3, 2014

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 25, 2014, by the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Cullen) regarding statements made in the House by the Member from MississaugaStreetsville (Mr. Butt). I would like to thank the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House (Mr. Van Loan) and the honourable Members for Winnipeg North (Mr. Lamoureux) and Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Hsu) for their comments. I also want to acknowledge the statements made by the Member for MississaugaStreetsville. In raising this matter, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition claimed that the hon. Member for MississaugaStreetsville had deliberately misled the House on February 6, 2014, during debate on Bill C-23, Fair Elections Act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand. He further argued that the matter was not resolved by the statements made by the Member for MississaugaStreetsville on February 24 and 25 where he admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he had originally claimed to have witnessed. In his view, this was not a simple case of someone misspeaking; he argued rather that it was a case where the Member deliberately chose to take something he knew not to be true and present it as eyewitness evidence; something so egregious, it constituted contempt. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House noted that the Member for MississaugaStreetsville had fulfilled his obligation to correct the record so that no inaccuracies persisted. He suggested that in and of itself this should be sufficient to (quote) rebut any concern that there has been a contempt (unquote). 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.

In calling on the Chair to arrive at a finding of prima facie in this case, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition cited my ruling of May 7, 2012, where at page 7650 of the Debates, I reminded the House that, before finding that a Member had deliberately misled the House, three conditions had to be met: (quote) 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. (unquote) Arguing all three of these conditions had been met, he concluded that a breach of privilege had occurred. It was with these criteria in mind that I undertook a thorough review of all relevant statements made in the House on this matter, focussing particularly, of course, on the statements made by the hon. Member for MississaugaStreetsville: Originally, on February 6, he stated, (quote) I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID. (unquote) Later that day, he added: (quote) I will relate () something I have actually seen. (unquote) It was only on February 24, that he rose to state, (quote) on February 6 () I made a statement () that is not accurate. I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed () [fraudulent activity] () and want the record to properly show that. (unquote) On February 25, he returned to the House, characterized his February 6 statement as (quote) an error on my part (unquote) and apologized (quote) to all Canadians and to all members of the House (unquote), adding that (quote) It was never my intention, in any way, to mislead the House (unquote). The Chair takes due note that the Member for MississaugaStreetsville has admitted that his February 6 statement was not true and that he has apologized for his mistake.

As was noted by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House, we all recognize that there is an enduring practice here of giving Members the benefit of the doubt when the accuracy of their statements is challenged. It is often the case that questions of privilege raised on such matters are found to be disputes as to facts rather than prima facie questions of privilege, primarily due to the high threshold of evidence that the House expects. Speaker Parent stated on page 9247 of Debates on October 19, 2000: (quote) Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members. (unquote) From what the Member for MississaugaStreetsville and other Members have revealed, it is quite clear that the House has been provided with two narratives that are contradictory statements. At the same time, the Member for MississaugaStreetsville stated that he had no intention of misleading the House. Speaker Milliken was faced with a similar set of circumstances in February 2002 when the then Minister of National Defence, Art Eggleton, provided contradictory information to the House. In ruling on a question of privilege raised about the contradiction, Speaker Milliken stated on February 1, at page 8581 of Debates: (quote) I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the ministers assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. (unquote) In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the Member for MississaugaStreetsville. At the same time, 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 (quote) further

consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air (unquote), I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House. I therefore invite the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition to move the traditional motion at this time.