Liberal Leader Bob Rae's Point of Privilege

8/2/2019 Liberal Leader Bob Rae's Point of Privilege

1/9

April 5, 2012

Hon. Andrew Scheer, MP

Speaker of the House of Commons

Room 222-NHouse of Commons

Mr. Speaker:

As provided for under S.O. 48(2), please accept this letter as notice of my intention toraise a question of privilege immediately after Question Period today.

I would note that this meets the criteria of being the first opportunity of raising the matter

referenced below as provided for at p. 142 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice,2nd edition.

The substance of the question I intend to raise concerns government members response to

statements and questions made in the House, April 4, 2012 in response to specific

questions and statements related to matters arising from the 2012 Auditor Generalsreport.

Sincerely,

Bob Rae, MP


2/9

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

April 5, 2012

Mr. Speaker on Tuesday of this week April 3, 2012 you had the honour oftabling in this House the 2012 Report of the Auditor General.

The Auditor General of course is an officer of Parliament and the reportstabled through you by his office are presumed to be an accurate reflection

of the issues his office undertook to examine.

As such all members of this place operate on the assumption that thecontents of the Auditor General's report, tabled by the Speaker are reliable

enough to base not only questions and comments upon but for the

government and if necessary Parliament to act upon whether through

administrative reforms or legislative measures.

That is point number one. My second point concerns the contents of questions, answers or

statements made in this place by members.

As the Speaker is well aware there are certain words and terms which areconsidered unparliamentary and when used by a member, the Speaker

has the authority to sanction that member for the use of such terms.

One such term is the word "liar".


3/9

A member who uses that word when addressing another member isconsidered to have breached this rules of this House and is expected to

apologize.

If no apology is forthcoming, the Speaker has the power and authority tosanction that member.

All members of this place have accepted this authority. The principle which supports the Speaker in this situation is the long

standing tradition that all members are presumed to be truthful in this

House.

At. p. 618 of O'Brien & Bosc it states: "The proceedings of the House arebased on a long standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all

members."

The presumption that all members of this House are speaking the truth

based upon their knowledge of a particular issue is accepted by all

members.

Speaker Fraser in a decision on a question of privilege (Debates, May 5,1987, p.5765-5766) stated in part that the institution of Parliament

enjoys, "the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding

need to ensure that the truth can be told."

So, Mr. Speaker I am beginning from the premise that all members -Cabinet members included - who speak in this place are speaking the

truth.


4/9

Mr. Speaker, Im reminded of Speaker Millikens ruling on March 9, 2011.It dealt with the contradictory statements of the Minister for CIDA

regarding KAIROS.

In his ruling where he ruled there was a prima facie case of privilege,Speaker Milliken said:

...members have argued that the minister has made statements incommittee that are different from those made in the House or provided to

the House in written form. Indeed, these members have argued that the

material available shows that contradictory information has been provided.

As a result, they argue, this demonstrates that the minister has

deliberately misled the House and that as such, a prima facie case of

privilege exists.

He quoted from a ruling delivered by Speaker Jerome on March 21, 1978,

which said:

--the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grantprecedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who

has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of

privilege desires to move, should be notdo I consider that, assuming

that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of

privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to

put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels

any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.


5/9

At the time, the member for ScarboroughRouge River indicated to theHouse, this has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has

confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account,

whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is

public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of

confusion.

Speaker Milliken also said, the situation before us where the House is leftwith two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an

appropriate committee, if only, to clear the air. The Chair then went on

to say in his view there was sufficient doubt to warrant a finding of prima

facie privilege in this case.

If that is the case there is a problem which requires your attention and Ibelieve a ruling with respect to the matter of truthfulness in statements by

members of the government.

Yesterday, I raised this matter as it concerns the Auditor General's 2012report.

Chapter 2 of that Report entitled, Replacing Canada's Fighter Jets containsthe following at p. 3 under the heading "The departments have

responded":


6/9


7/9

F-35. Some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians. There was a lack

of timely and complete documentation to support the procurement strategy

decision.

2.81PWGSC did not demonstrate due diligence in its role as the governments

procurement authority. Although it was not engaged by National Defence until

late in the decision-making process, PWGSC relied almost exclusively on

assertions by National Defence and endorsed the sole-source procurement

strategy in the absence of required documentation and completed analysis.

Since the report was presented to the House, the government--throughthe Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Public Works

and Government Services, the Associate Minister of Defence and the

Government House Leader have responded in a consistent manner.

The following are representative of the line of argument by thegovernment:

o "We do in fact accept the conclusions of the Auditor General, andwe will in fact implement his recommendations." The Associate

Minister of National Defence, April 3, 2012, Debates, p. 6849.

o We have said that we accept his conclusions. The Minister ofNational Defence, April 4, 2012, Debates, p. 6898.


8/9

o We accept the conclusions of the Auditor General. The AssociateMinister of National Defence, April 4, 2012, Debates, p. 6898.

o I say to the member that our government believes very stronglythat the Auditor General's recommendations and conclusions were

accurate, and we agree with them. The Minister of Public Works

and Government Services, April 4, 2012, Debates, p. 6903.

o The government has clearly expressed, through the ministershere, the views we have that we accept the findings of the Auditor

General and the recommendations. The Government House

Leader, April 4, 2012, Debates, p. 6903.

At no point has any member of the government stated in this place thatboth National Defence and Public Works and Government Services in fact

"disagree with the conclusions" of the Auditor General a declaration which

is clearly evident in the report itself.

In fact, as I have indicated, statements made in this House have beencategorical - the government, according to the record of this place accept

the conclusions of the Auditor General which as a point of fact is

misleading, erroneous and best suited to an unparliamentary term.

The point I raise is not a matter of interpretation It is clear that twocompletely different and contradictory versions of reality are being

presented in this House by the Government.


9/9

In response the oral questions the Government accepts all conclusions ofthe Auditor General, while in written submission to the House through

their response to the Auditor Generals report, they reject several

conclusions of the AG.

These two versions of reality cannot both be true. One must be afalsehood.

While it is not for the Speaker to determine what is fact what is clear isthat the two versions of reality leave this House with significant confusion

on this issue. Indeed the two versions seem to be an attempt to

deliberately confuse the House.

It should be noted that the Ministers in this House were apprised of thefindings of the report prior to it being tabled in this House as is

demonstrated by the fact that the report contains statements from the

departments affected and how they have responded.

It is my contention that, based upon the conflicting versions of realitydelivered by the government in this place in response to the Auditor

General's report concerning the F-35 procurement process, that my

privileges have been contravened.

If you find a case of privilege in this matter, I am prepared to move theappropriate motion.

Documents

Liberal Leader Bob Rae's Point of Privilege