Of course I want to listen to any question of privilege and I do listen attentively. From what I heard today this is a dispute of the facts.
We have an hon. member saying he put a question in and he received an answer. The answer he received does not coincide with the facts that he believes he has.
We have the hon. government House leader standing up and saying that to the best knowledge of whoever prepared this and to his best knowledge these are the facts as they are stated. You put the Speaker in a position where he becomes an ombudsman for a fact determination.
You mentioned a ruling that I made in 1994. I ruled also as reported at page 9426 of Hansard on February 9, 1995 when I said:
This is not the first time there have been disputes over replies to order paper questions or over the content of documents tabled by a minister. For example, I refer hon. members to three rulings, the first on February 28, 1983 at pages 23278-9 of the Debates ; the second on February 21, 1990 at page 8618; the third on May 15, 1991 at page 100. I must point out, however, that in none of these cases was the matter found to be prima facie.
Speaker Fraser noted on May 15, 1991 in his ruling:
The hon. member has raised an issue which is not an unusual kind of issue to raise. The hon. member is not satisfied with the response given. The difficulty that is always with the Chair in these cases is that there are often very great differences of interpretation on answers given. It is not a question of privilege. It is a question of disagreement over certain facts and answers that were given.
The hon. member will know that I did listen to his arguments. I listened to the opposition whip and I listened to the government House leader. In my view this is surely a dispute over the facts but it is not a question of privilege.