Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments of the government House leader of Thursday, October 21, 1999, concerning my question of privilege.
Most of the comments of the government House leader in arguing that this was not a question of privilege concerned the CSIS answer to Question No. 36 on Document No. 17.
I wish the government House leader had read further in my submission of documents. If he had he would have seen document 20 which shows that in responding to question 36, CSIS provided an inaccurate answer by not mentioning the 107 press releases, newspaper clippings, and radio and television transcripts as part of the material that CSIS forwarded to the plaintiff.
At document 21, in responding to question 36, CSIS claims that videotapes were passed to the plaintiff in response to a request from him. Yet in the plaintiff's own sworn testimony he stated “They were provided to me without my asking”.
At document 22, in responding to question 36, CSIS claims that it provided only one CSIS policy document to the plaintiff. Yet in the very affidavit that CSIS was being cross-examined on it listed five separate policy documents.
In this one answer CSIS has provided three separate inaccurate responses, yet the government House leader would have us accept this very same answer as the authority that CSIS did nothing wrong.
On the topic of collection of information by investigative bodies, I would like to bring the following to the attention of the House. Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 98, states in part:
Members have raised, as a matter of privilege, the question of police files being maintained on members.
The Speaker refused to recognize these as questions of privilege unless the charge was specific and unless the dossier referred to the individual as a member of parliament rather than as an ordinary citizen.
My circumstances are certainly specific. Not only are we aware—