Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 48. I regret that I must bring this matter to your attention today.
It has been demonstrated that the Minister of National Defence has deliberately misled the House. Hansard has recorded his misleading statement. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has picked up the admission of that misleading statement while the minister was scrummed outside the House after question period yesterday. I have that tape, Mr. Speaker, and I will submit it to you.
The minister has not apologized to the House for his misleading statements nor has he made any attempt to clear the record in this place. I view this conduct to be inconsistent with the standards that the House and the public expect from its members. Accordingly, the Minister of National Defence is in contempt of the House.
On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, the Minister of National Defence, in response to a question in the House, stated that he learned about the involvement of Canadian troops taking prisoners in Afghanistan on Friday, January 25, 2002. The minister said at that time:
Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday. It required further examination to determine whether in fact Canadians were involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect.
Yesterday, in response to a follow up question, the minister said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I was first informed about the detention of prisoners and the mission within 24 hours of when it actually occurred.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister knew within 24 hours, then the minister learned of the incident on Monday, January 21 or, at the latest, on Tuesday, January 22.
After question period, during the scrum outside the Chamber, the minister admitted that he indeed misled the House. He said that he regretted giving the House false information. As I said earlier, I have the tape and can make it available.
On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May it states:
The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.
On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May it states:
Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
At page 234 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , it explains that in order for the Speaker to find a prima facie case in a matter involving a deliberate misleading statement, there must be “an admission by someone in authority, such as a minister of the crown or an officer of a department”.
Mr. Speaker, we have two contradictory statements by the minister recorded in Hansard. One was made on Tuesday, January 29 and one was made on Wednesday, January 30. We have videotape showing the minister admitting to misleading the House in regard to these statements.
The evidence that I have presented is prima facie. The records of the House as well as the video records of the media confirm that the minister knowingly misled the House.
Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.