In his response on November 10, the minister stated that while negotiations on agreements with aboriginal groups for the management of aboriginal salmon fishing were in many cases protracted, leading to delays in signing of agreements, these had little impact on agreements and fisheries regulations. I emphasize the words "little impact".
Access documents which I received December 7, 1994 contradicted the minister. I will bring several of these contradictions to the attention of this House.
In a memo dated August 17, 1994 approved by D.D. Aurel, Chief of Conservation and Protection, Fraser River Division it is stated: "The late signing of the aboriginal agreements has also resulted in difficulties in respect to proper management of the fishery and, in many cases, bands have not been able to abide by the terms of the agreement".
The second point states: "The lateness in the signing of the 1994 aboriginal fishing agreement has resulted in the breakdown of effective management of the native fishery on the Fraser River. Again, many aspects of the agreement failed to materialize or were simply neglected. DFO officers were unable to perform their duties".
The third point in the memo states: "The late signing of the aboriginal fishing agreements has contributed to management's reduced capacity to adequately monitor the fishery, provide accurate catch information and provide enforcement of the regulations governing the fishery on the Fraser River between Steveston and Lillooet during the period of June 25 to July 31, 1994".
In a memo dated September 19, 1994 to Paul Sutherland, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region from the Director of Conservation and Protection, Pacific Region it is stated: "The major aboriginal agreements were not signed until well into the month of July 1994. As such there would have been no designated aboriginal guardians patrolling their early fisheries until such times as the agreements were signed. This created a gap not only in the enforcement program but also in the monitoring of the early portion of the fishery".
The second point of the same memo: "In addition, there were a number of start-up problems with the guardian program once the agreements were signed, including the lack of an enforcement co-ordinator until mid August. There was therefore a lack of direction for those aboriginal guardian staff who were hired by the bands until the enforcement co-ordinator position was filled".
On August 22 the Fraser River fishery catch estimation was addressed to the Chief of Conservation and Protection, Pacific Region from the Field Supervisor, General Investigation Services, Fraser River Division and stated: "Agreements in the Sto:Lo and Musqueam-Tsawwassen areas were not signed and hence no mandatory landing program was in place until well into the early Stuart sockeye migration in the lower river with a potential unreported catch in this fishery".
These documents indicate that the late signing of the AFS agreements had a massive impact on the enforcement of the agreements and fisheries regulations. The documents contradict the minister. The minister knew this. In early November of this year he met with fisheries officers of Vancouver and discussed the shortcomings of the enforcement regime in place last summer.
The rights of the members of this House include the right to accurate information. Beauchesne's sixth edition states in citation 24:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.
Surely we must expect the responses to Order Paper questions to be accurate and well-reasoned. I placed that question on the Order Paper recognizing it was one that required detailed study by the government because I wanted a detailed answer. After all is that not the purpose of such questions?
In speaking to a similar discrepancy to an Order Paper answer and access to information documents, the member for Kingston and the Islands in 1990 stated: "The information provided to the House must be accurate and must not mislead the House".
I offer for the Speaker's consideration the 1978 decision where the member for Northumberland-Durham raised a question of privilege in the House of Commons. The then Solicitor General had written and provided information which later proved to be erroneous.
On December 6, 1978 the Speaker indicated as reported at page 1857 of Hansard : ``I therefore find a prime facie case of contempt against the House of Commons''. If it was contempt against the House of Commons to provide a member of Parliament with erroneous information, then surely to provide the House itself with erroneous information through a written reply to a question on the Order Paper would also be a prime facie case of privilege.
It is incumbent upon the government to provide through the Order Paper not only the questioner, in this case myself, but the House accurate information in order for us as parliamentarians to discharge our functions appropriately.
I have been able to get accurate information under access to information. Both the access request and the Order Paper question were submitted in late September. How is it that the minister could get away with inaccurate information responding to an Order Paper question in the House?
The response given in this House would have been illegal under the Access to Information Act. If members want accurate information, is it necessary to go to access to information rather than to this House? Surely members of this House should expect a standard of accuracy that is as high as that received under access to information.
Mr. Speaker, should you rule that I have a prime facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion and send the issue to a parliamentary committee.
