Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. In particular, I rise to address certain data offered by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Natural Resources in support of the bill that I believe violates my privileges as a member, and the privileges of all members of this place.

As O'Brien and Bosc note, on page 86 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, privileges may be infringed by “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House by a Minister”.

The case at issue involves a report prepared for the justice department by a research team led by Dr. Anne Crocker of McGill University, entitled “Description and processing of individuals found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder accused of serious violent offences”. This report has been central to the discussions of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this legislation. It was important in the House, as well, during second reading debate. In fact, if we look at the blues from last Wednesday's justice committee meeting alone, we will find Dr. Crocker mentioned by name 10 times.

As one of the few scientists in the House today, I especially value and need correct numbers to properly do my work as an MP; otherwise my work would be impeded.

One thing people have learned over the last few centuries is the value of observation and measurement: the success of empiricism. That is how we have made advances in science and technology. It gives us the ability to have smart government policies, to understand the people and the country they have entrusted us to govern.

I found Dr. Crocker's report helpful in formulating my own thinking on Bill C-54.

As a news story by Laura Stone of Global News reported yesterday afternoon, and thus I am raising this question at the first opportunity, the Department of Justice was provided with the initial version of the report that I mentioned in November of last year. Some of the data in this report was incorrect as the result of a coding error. This is not something for which I would find fault with the government or researchers. Tabulation errors are bound to happen here and there, and in my work as a scientist I have made such mistakes and have had to fix them. In fact, that is how good scientists work. Mistakes are discovered, acknowledged and fixed, and our understanding advances.

What is shocking is that the government was provided with a corrected version of the report from this past March, and despite having the new report, continued to cite from the old report, misleading Parliament and Canadians. The government even went so far as to table the old report in this place after being informed of the corrected report, a report it has yet to table.

Moreover, the government now takes issue with the researchers whom it commissioned to prepare the report, saying their corrections raise questions about the quality of the work, calling it “unreliable”, even though science actually makes progress through a process involving a continual recognition of errors and their corrections. The researchers did the right thing here, and they know what the right numbers are.

While I could go on at length about the need for evidence-based policy-making and how we should not be legislating if we do not have facts to support our propositions, I will confine myself now to the privilege question before us.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, includes, at page 83, a list of items found by the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to be types of contempt. Specifically included on this list is “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. As well, and again I quote, “deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House or a committee”.

Mr. Patrick Baillie of the Advisory Council of the Mental Health Commission of Canada testified before the justice committee this past Monday in response to a question from the member for Brossard—La Prairie, and said:

Regarding the recidivism statistic, there was an unfortunate error that occurred in the initial draft of the report that was provided to the Department of Justice in November of 2012. [...] 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.

My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, followed this with a clarifying question, to which Mr. Baillie responded:

We became aware of the error on March 14 and communicated that to the minister's office that day. The amended report was then provided to the research division on March 18 with an acknowledgement seeking clarification of what was the nature of the coding error. So the office was aware of that in March.

As Mr. Baillie further testified, and with this I would agree:

I think that it is important on such a serious issue for the committee to have accurate and up-to-date information, and I hope that the report that was provided to the office in March can be made available to the members of this committee for their deliberations on this topic.

It should be clear that reliance on the old report prejudices members of all parties. Indeed, the news article in question quotes the Conservative MP for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley as saying, “If it was tabled in the House of Commons, I assumed it was accurate”.

The initial draft of the report was tabled as part of an order for return in response to question 1169 on the order paper standing in the name of my colleague from Mount Royal. That order for return included the report as an annex with a note stating, “A significantly amended version of this report was provided to the Department of Justice on March 18, 2013...”.

This statement is important because it confirms that the department was made aware of it on the 18th. It is also important because the order for return bears the minister's signature.

Where it gets interesting is that the old report itself was included in response to part of the order paper question asking about sources relied upon by the government in developing Bill C-54. This makes sense because the government can only rely on the evidence it had at the time. However, the question also asked the government separately for several particular pieces of information, including which people who were found NCR released had been convicted of a subsequent offence and what was the nature of the subsequent offence. The government's response was “see annex 1”, which was the old report.

If the government is asked a question and gives an answer, we will assume it is referring to the most up-to-date information that it has. Members would easily conclude that the correct information was included in response to the question and thus the corrected report. As we found out only this week, that was not the case.

While I take issue with the government's choice to table the old report when it had the new corrected report, as a matter of principle, I also take issue with it as a matter of privilege. Simply put, the government should seek to be forthright with Canadians, providing them and their elected representatives with accurate information in a timely fashion as a matter of course. The government has an obligation to do so as per the rules of the House.

On Monday, May 27, the Minister of Natural Resources stood in this place and said the following during debate on Bill C-54:

It is very important that when we talk about what the risk to the public is, we try to get as close as we can to the facts. The facts are: 27.3% of not criminally responsible accused have a past finding of NCR; 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior....Those facts have to be brought into the analytical picture so we get a more objective understanding of what is in fact going on.

That was May 27, yet the minister cited from the old report.

To illustrate the problem with but one example in his intervention, the scary sounding statistic that 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior NCR finding is in fact incorrect. In reality, the number is only 9.5%. The government knew of this fact two months before the statement of the minister.

It is not surprising that in the same debate the leader of the Green Party stated, “I was baffled by the statistics used earlier in the debate by the Minister of Natural Resources...”.

I think many watching that debate were also.

However, where it gets more baffling is the response from the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, wherein he stated:

the Minister of Natural Resources cited a few recidivism statistics, and whether it is 27.3% of NCR accused who have had past findings of NCR, or 4% or 7% as the member stated, what is important in this legislation is that prosecutors would have some additional tools....

What is important is that parliamentarians are provided with the facts. What is important is that this House is not misled.

I submit that the Minister of Natural Resources misled the House in his interventions on May 27, citing crucial statistics that the government previously acknowledged had been since revised. Moreover, I submit that the Minister of Justice misled the House on May 27, as well, when in response to a question from the leader of the Green Party about the Crocker report in particular, he stated:

Mr. Speaker, we have actually commissioned a couple of reports and I referred to some of the statistics in the final report that was given to us in November 2012.

By the Minister's own signature on the order for return on May 27, he acknowledged that an amended report was given to the justice department on March 18. Therefore, he misled the House, by stating on May 27 that the “final” report was “given to us in November 2012”.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling on March 18 of this year, and found on page 14854 of the Debates, you reiterated that:

Our parliamentary practice sets a very high threshold for the Speaker to make a prima facie finding of privilege.

Citing a previous ruling from last year, you reiterated the three findings you must make regarding misleading statements. I will quote from your ruling, Mr. Speaker:

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, [it must be proven] that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

Briefly going through each element, the Minister of Justice calling the November 2012 report final was misleading when there was a corrected March report. By his own pen, he acknowledged the March report's existence in May. The question he was asked was about the Crocker report in particular, and it was the minister who volunteered the qualifying adjective “final”. I therefore submit that this misled the House, as did the reliance on the old report on the same day in debate by the Minister of Natural Resources.

On that last point, Mr. Speaker, you quoted Speaker Milliken's ruling of April 21, 2005, found at page 5412 of Debates, wherein the former Speaker reminded the House of a key element to consider when finding a prima facie instance of privilege. Specifically, he said:

...whether the minister's responses in any way impeded members in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether the remarks were intentionally misleading.

Mr. Speaker, members are impeded in their functions when they are denied evidence and facts used in crucial arguments for or against legislation. Various members have raised concerns over the statistics involved in this file. It is clear that the member who asked the question to the Minister of Justice that elicited the “final report” answer was upset that she could not further question the Minister of Natural Resources about his statistics from said report, and remarked in this place, “I wish I could have gotten a question to him”.

Those statements of May 27 were right before the bill went to committee, and as I understand it members will be beginning clause-by-clause examination this evening. They have thus been operating with incorrect data before them, an issue raised by witnesses this past Monday. Again, this is something that prejudices all members, regardless of party.

On this point, I refer you to an intervention from the Conservative member for Prince Albert on Bill C-54, when he said:

There has been a limited amount of data on the rates of reoffending by NCR accused persons.

and then:

These reforms will provide the data we consider necessary....

I think that member would be pleased to learn that there is such data and that the government is in possession of it, though whether or not he reaches the same conclusion upon its review is a different story.

As I draw to a close, I return to the issue of the report. I submit that the corrected version was required of this government in its answer to Question No. 1169 to the extent it cited such a report as a source of current, correct data.

Moreover, as the Debates of March 1, before the corrected report was brought to the government's attention, illustrate that the government undertook to provide members with data. In particular, the Minister of Justice cited statistics and said in response to a question, “There are statistics, and I would be glad to share the report with the hon. member”, later again repeating, “Those are statistics and findings that have been researched. I would be pleased, of course, to share this with the hon. member in more detail”.

I do not believe the House or committee sought more information from the minister of the government because we took the minister at his word to provide the data he and his department had. I believe the government undertook this obligation of its own accord and therefore created an impression in the minds of members that it would be forthright with the data. As we now know, it was not.

Mr. Speaker, while I realize such matters, if found by you to be prima facie breaches of privilege, are referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there are other avenues here that may be more helpful. While I do believe you should find that the House and committee have been misled by the minister cited, I am more concerned about the remedy.

While I doubt the government would be willing to put Bill C-54 on hold until it had data it considered reliable and accurate with regard to persons found non-criminally responsible, I would accept this. Moreover, I would even consider abandoning this privilege claim if the government were to table the new report in the House and explain why it did not choose to do so when it was first made aware of the correction. While I realize other members affected by this situation may have a different approach and wish to see this at the Procedure and House Affairs committee, I simply need to have the correct numbers placed before the House.

In closing, all members of this place, regardless of party, benefit from having facts and data before them when legislating and, indeed, I would argue we all have a right to know. The government knew, but kept members in the dark and, by its own admission, made an effort to conceal.

This is something that ought to be sanctioned as, if left uncorrected, remains a standing affront to the privileges of all members of this place.

Ted Hsu

Transcript

Routine Proceedings

Discussions (0)