![[Parliamentary Coat-of-Arms]](../pics/crest.gif)
Edited
Hansard • Number 119
Monday, September 15, 2003
The Speaker: The Chair has notice of two questions of privilege. The first is from the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville. I will hear the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville on his question of privilege.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr.Speaker, I wrote to you on July 17, 2003 to give you notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege with respect to: first, misleading statements made by the justice minister in the House on February 3, 2003; second, similar misleading statements made in a new release issued by the justice minister's department that same day; and third, the failure of the justice minister to provide all the documents requested by the Auditor General in her office's letter to his department dated February 14, 2003.
We were not made aware of these misleading statements or the Auditor General's letter until Tim Naumetz reported it in several CanWest newspapers on July 16, 2003. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter as Parliament has been in summer recess until today.
I will start by listing the documents I have reviewed in preparing my question of privilege today and that I will have delivered to your office today: first, a copy of the National Post article that broke the story dated July 16, 2003 titled “Auditor-General raised alarm over gun registry audit: Justice Department misrepresented financial review, officials said”; second, a copy of the letter from the Auditor General's office to the deputy minister of justice dated February 14, 2003; third, a copy of page 3068 from the Commons Debates dated February 3, 2003; fourth, a copy of the news release issued by the Department of Justice dated February 3, 2003 titled “Minister Of Justice Releases Results Of Independent Gun Control Program Reviews”; fifth, a copy of the KPMG transmittal letter to the justice department dated January 31, 2003; sixth, a copy of the KPMG report titled “Canadian Firearms Centre: Report of Findings from the Performance of Specified Procedures” dated January 31, 2003; and seventh, a copy of the Hill Times article from Monday, August 4, 2003 titled “[Minister of Justice] in contempt of Parliament: Alliance MP Says Justice Minister misled House over gun registry boondoggle”.
After reviewing the justice minister's statements in Hansard and in his press release, I have come to the conclusion that the minister is in contempt of Parliament. The evidence is overwhelming.
The crux of the case is the minister's statement in the House on February 3, 2003 when he said:
|
|
--the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate... |
I underline the word accurate.
However, on February 14 the Auditor General's office informed the justice minister that the KPMG study did not do this because KPMG did not conduct an attest audit.
In the letter from the Office of the Auditor General to Mr. Morris Rosenberg, deputy minister of justice, dated February 14, 2003, assistant auditor general, Mr. Hugh McRoberts, wrote:
|
|
We are concerned that there may be insufficient information in the KPMG Report to support the conclusions in the Press Release. We would like to be able to respond to any Parliamentary concerns about the KPMG Report that may be raised in the forthcoming hearings. |
|
|
There are two statements in the Department's Press Release that are causing concern. These statements conclude that the KPMG Report-- |
For everyone's benefit I would like to point out that these are quotes right from the minister's press release.
|
|
“Has allowed the Department of Justice to confirm that the necessary systems are in place to ensure the integrity and completeness of relevant financial data; and |
|
|
This work has provided the Department with confidence that the information compiled on past expenditures is accurate”. |
|
|
We are concerned that the work described in the KPMG report and accompanying transmission letter does not appear to be sufficient to support these statements. For example, KPMG states on page 2 of its Report that “the procedures performed on the expenditures are limited, they do not constitute an attest audit of the expenditures of the Canadian Firearms Centre”. Further, KPMG states that it is not expressing an audit opinion on the expenditures of the Centre or the Canadian Firearms Program. |
|
|
Since KPMG's work was of a limited nature and was not an attest audit, we are concerned that it may be being inappropriately used in the Press Release to draw conclusions about the integrity and completeness of the Departmental financial information on the expenditures of the Centre or the larger Canadian Firearms Program. |
I think the use of the word “may” was being polite. The fact is that the minister's press release of February 3, 2003 was inappropriately used. The quotes in the press release speak for themselves.
In fact, on page 2 of the assistant auditor general's report to the deputy minister of justice he stated:
|
|
We continue to be concerned about this issue because Parliamentary debates relating to information in the Department's Press Release suggest that the KPMG work is being interpreted as having been an attest audit of Program expenditures; and that the KPMG has concluded that the Department's financial information on the Program is complete and accurate. |
Here is the contentious quote from the minister's press release:
|
|
The first report, by consulting firm KPMG, has allowed the Department of Justice to confirm that the necessary systems are in place to ensure the integrity and completeness of relevant financial data. This work has provided the Department with confidence that the information compiled on past expenditures is accurate. |
Not only did the justice minister show his contempt for Parliament and the public by making public these misleading conclusions in his press release but he also said much the same thing in the House of Commons on February 3 during routine proceedings.
This is a direct quote from the justice minister from page 3068 from the Commons Debates for that day:
|
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate and corresponds to the figures submitted to this House in the public accounts. In addition, the KPMG report provides us with a basis for continuing to report the full costs of the program, as requested by the Auditor General of Canada. |
Based on the concerns raised by the Office of the Auditor General about the limited nature of the KPMG report, it is clear to everyone that the justice minister misled the House with this statement and represents a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament.
The 22nd edition of Erskine May on page 63 describes ministerial responsibility and states:
|
|
--it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister; |
On page 119 of Erskine May's 21st edition it states:
|
The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. |
A Speaker in 1978 ruled a matter to be a prima facie case of contempt where the RCMP were alleged to have deliberately misled a minister of the crown and the member for Northumberland--Durham resulting in “an attempt to obstruct the House by offering misleading information”.
More recently the Speaker ruled a question of privilege to be prima facie on February 1, 2002. It involved the Minister of Justice who made misleading statements in the House. In that case the minister advised the Speaker that he had no intention of misleading the House, which would not make it deliberate. Nevertheless the Speaker felt that it was in the best interest of the House to have a committee look into the matter.
The Speaker said:
|
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 the hon. member 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. |
The facts are clear. The justice minister's statements in the House were not accurate. For this he should be found in contempt of Parliament.
Since the minister's deputy received the letter from the Office of the Auditor General on February 14 warning him of the inaccurate statements in his press release, the minister has not corrected the public record nor has he corrected the statements he made in the House about the KPMG report. For this he should be found in contempt.
The minister must also have known that they were not accurate at the time he made them. Consequently, he knowingly misled the House, and for this he should resign.
Finally, the February 14 letter from the Office of the Auditor General pointed out even more contemptible behaviour on the part of the Minister of Justice and the officials in his office.
On page 2, the assistant auditor general wrote:
|
|
We understand that KPMG may have provided additional verbal or written assurance to the Department to allow it to form the conclusions in the Press Release. We would appreciate receiving the letter sent to the Department from KPMG indicating that it had provided assurances to the Department to support the statements the Department made in the Press Release. We would also appreciate it if the Department would obtain and forward to us copies of KPMG working papers that support the specific assurances it made to the Department and which support- |
The Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member has made his point and now he is going off on what I would have to regard as a tangential argument that might be helpful but I suspect it is not. I wonder if he could perhaps bring his remarks to a conclusion. I sense he is getting near the end but I cannot tell how many pages there are left of his helpful notes.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have about 20 seconds left.
The letter continues on to say:
|
|
--the statements in the Press Release. |
|
|
As well, we would appreciate receiving any analysis the Department conducted on the KPMG work or any other work it did to support the above cited conclusions. |
In conclusion, it is my understanding that all the information requested in the assistant auditor general's letter has not been provided by the department. If your investigation proves this point, then the justice minister has also shown his contempt for the Office of the Auditor General, a respected officer of Parliament.
There is a volume of evidence here, as is obvious by this lengthy intervention. If the Speaker agrees with the documented evidence I presented today, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the question of privilege, at least the alleged question of privilege.
The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville alleges that the Minister of Justice has, in his view, misled the House of Commons concerning the findings of a report by KPMG on the financial records of the firearms program.
On February 3 the Minister of Justice tabled a report in the House of Commons. We all recall that. When tabling the document, the minister stated:
|
|
...the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate and corresponds to the figure submitted to this House in the public accounts. |
The member for Yorkton--Melville relies upon the letter dated February 14 from the assistant auditor general to the deputy minister of justice to support his claim that the minister, in his view, misled the House. However the letter from the assistant auditor general does not state that the minister misled Parliament. I am sure Mr. Speaker will become acquainted with that. Rather, the letter is focused on a potential misinterpretation that the KPMG report is a so-called attest audit of the program.
At most, the Auditor General states that “there may be insufficient information in the KPMG report”, and that the Office of the Auditor General “would like to be able to respond to any parliamentary concern about the KPMG report that may be raised in forthcoming hearings”. And of course the Auditor General regularly testifies before a committee of Parliament.
I submit that this is a matter for debate and not at all a question of privilege. The Minister of Justice tabled a report in the House so that it is available for the scrutiny of members. The minister tabled a report to meet his commitment to be open and transparent with the House on firearms issues. That is not the responsibility of another minister of the crown.
The member for Yorkton--Melville, thanks to the minister, was provided access to that information. If he disagrees with the minister's interpretation insofar as the result of the report is concerned, of course he is free to do so. That is what debate is all about.
MPs can question the government over findings of the report, or any other report, in question period, in committee or in subsequent adjournment debates at the end of the day, and MPs are able to seek the views of the Auditor General on the scope of the report all the time, as I indicated a while ago.
In fact, the public accounts committee already investigated this matter on February 24 when the minister and the Auditor General appeared on the firearms program. At that meeting the Auditor General clarified the fact that the study was not an attest audit. That was clarified on February 24 and presumably has remained clear since then. The Hansard or the committee report will attest to that.
On the basis of this information, it is clear that no question of privilege exists or at least not in this matter.
The Speaker: I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for his usual zeal in pursuing this matter and certainly for the assistance that he and the government House leader provided to the Chair in dealing with this matter. I understand he is going to deliver a volume of material to the Speaker's office later this day for me to read. I will plow through it at some point and then return to the House in due course with a decision in respect of the issues raised by the hon. member and responded to by the government House leader.
I have notice of another question of privilege from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.
* * *