Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience. I do not want to rehash past events. For the benefit of all members of the House, let us focus on what is really at issue here. I feel compelled to stress this because there is a very important distinction in the situation we are facing today relative to precedent.
The precedents referred to are on the notion of confidentiality, budget secrecy as applied at large. We are facing a new situation today in which certain members of the House of Commons were informed beforehand according to this bold admission.
Mr. Speaker, that is the evidence you have. May I point out according to precedent that is the prima facie evidence you have before you today. That is the reason I think you will find here a question of privilege.
The parliamentary secretary has hoisted himself on his own petard when he rises in this place to say there is no evidence and then goes on to explain the rebuttal of the evidence that happens to be in front of this House. To make that statement is so gross as to deny that this statement actually exists in a document that was distributed to the public at large.
This is the last point I want to make. Let me read the quotation because it goes directly to the heart of this matter. The member for Guelph-Wellington said: "I do not think so. There were some MPs who were told beforehand if major cuts were coming to programs in their ridings".
The last phrase goes to motive: "They asked for that in caucus so they could prepare to answer questions".
My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois-