Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the question of privilege brought by my friend from Kingston and the Islands. He brought a question of privilege regarding data, and more importantly, data the government was using that was not correct in terms of constructing its argument for a bill. He took that as a question of privilege, an invocation that I think is quite serious.

Our research team prepared a report for the justice department entitled “Description and Processing of Individuals Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder Accused of 'Serious Violent Offences'”. This report was central to the discussions on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, both in the House, where the report was tabled, and at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, which studied the legislation.

The report was given to the Department of Justice in November 2012. On March 14, 2013, the department was notified that there was an error in this report. The government was provided with a corrected version on March 18 of that same year. We know this as a sure fact from a committee witness who said:

That error was discovered on March 14th and immediately communicated to the Minister's office, and a revised report was provided on March 18th with that data corrected

There was also a note attached to the report when it was tabled, saying that a significantly amended version of this report was provided to the Department of Justice on March 18, 2013, so that is not in dispute. Whether there was an incorrect report that was then corrected and given to the government has all been established as fact.

However, the Conservatives nonetheless continued to cite from the old report and even tabled the old report on March 27, thus providing misleading information to the House and all members of Parliament. The numbers between the two reports varied significantly and have had an impact on how we have been studying and debating legislation and making decisions on policy concerns.

A small example is that the original report said that 38.1% of sex offenders found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding. That number was changed in the report to 9.5%. When MPs were debating, the information they had given to them by the government said that almost 40% were true in these cases. The actual number was less than 10%.

It also said that 27.7% of those accused of attempted murder had one NCR finding. That number was then changed to 4.6%, and the figure of 19% accused of murder or homicide with one prior NCR was changed to 5.2%. There was a dramatic one-fifth, one-quarter and one-tenth difference in the numbers. These are not small or trivial. They are significant.

According to O'Brien and Bosc, contempt of Parliament is

“any action which...tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House”.

According to the same authors, “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee” is a form of contempt.

The 22nd edition of Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice also states on page 63:

it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity

This would not be the first time the Chair has found a prima facie case of contempt of the House related to misleading the House and committees.

In 2003, the former privacy commissioner, George Radwanski, was found in contempt of the House for providing deliberately misleading testimony during hearings of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the financial management and staffing of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, November 6.

In 2008, the RCMP deputy commissioner, Barbara George, was found in contempt of this House for providing misleading testimony during the Standing Committee on Public Accounts hearings into allegations of mishandling of the RCMP pension and insurance plans.

This, sadly, is not the first time we have discussed instances of the Conservative government misleading the House and Canadians. In this case, the Conservatives purposely used the old and incorrect numbers, because they made a better case for their version of the legislation. They used the numbers that pleased them instead of using the facts that were true. This was detrimental to members of all parties and to the members of the committee studying the bill based on incorrect data.

Correct numbers give us the ability to develop good policy, but the current government members, we have seen far too often, are not interested in science-based policy-making.

Misleading the House and Canadians is a very serious breach of the rules of governing both our democracy and this institution.

I therefore support the request from the member for Kingston and the Islands that the proper measures be taken.

Nathan Cullen

Transcript

Oral Questions

Discussions (0)