Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a very grave matter relating to a deliberate attempt by the minister of fisheries to deny me information. I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 25, citation 97:
-"While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances would ever exist for a prima facie case of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an Hon. Member-.
I also refer you to citation 24:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the execution of its powers".
I have a copy of a directive from the minister of fisheries that involves my personal privileges as a member of Parliament and the privileges of all members of Parliament from British Columbia. The directive states:
We have been instructed by the Minister's office to report to them all telephone calls from MPs and Senators. The report is to include the name of the individual, the office they are associated with, phone number and the issue along with a summary of what information was given to the caller.
The messages are to be e-mailed or faxed to me within 24 hours of the call having been received. Attached is a form which is to be used.
Please ensure all your staff are advised to report all such calls to you immediately.
This directive went to all regional directors in the Pacific region of the department of fisheries. As the fisheries critic for the Reform Party in this House, there can be no doubt this directive was aimed to discourage public civil servants from talking to me as a member of Parliament.
As a member of Parliament I will have less access to public information than a member of the general public. How can I work on its behalf? How can I carry out my job of representing my constituents if public servants are discouraged from speaking with me?
This is an obvious attempt to stifle the work of a member of Parliament. If a general member of the public makes an inquiry to the department of fisheries, they are normally given a courteous reply. Public servants are paid with taxpayer money. They are public servants, not political servants of this government. It is not their job to spy on members of Parliament.
If public servants at the department of fisheries in the Pacific region, that is British Columbia, are required to record the nature of the conservation with a member of this House within 24 hours it will discourage public servants from speaking with members. If public servants at fisheries speak, they will have to explain to the minister what they said and be prepared to explain why they said it. Why would a public servant risk the wrath of the minister by even having a conversation with a member of Parliament?
This directive by the minister of fisheries will have a chilling effect on the normal flow of public information to members of Parliament. The public service is not the military or the police. I recognize that members of the military may not be able to respond to questions from members of the House. But is the minister of fisheries turning public servants into his own regiment that is required to snitch on conversations with members?
Should members of this House be named on such an enemy's list? Are public servants required to inform the minister of their conversations with representatives of foreign governments within
24 hours? Are members of this House being treated worse than possible foreign spies and possible enemies of the country?
The actions of the minister of fisheries have impaired my privileges as a member of this House. The minister's action prevents me from doing my job. Members of Parliament should never be treated as enemies.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you investigate this matter and give me your ruling.