Mr. Speaker, with respect to precedent I also refer the Chair, again with respect to the trust that ministers should have in information placed before them, to The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government by Eugene Forsey and G. C. Eglington. I am sure the Chair is familiar with this publication. It was used extensively by the McGrath commission. At page 19 it reads:
The cornerstone of our constitution is the Sovereign whose government is carried on in Her several realms.
It goes on further to say:
--government is a trust which the Sovereign discharges; it is a trust that cannot be thrown up or ignored in some nihilistic whim.
In the same publication, speaking of responsibilities of ministers, the authors write:
It entails frankness and openness with the sovereign or her personal representative and a proper respect for the royal or vice regal right to warn and advise.
This pertains directly to the information that members of parliament should expect in all statements and information passed by ministers to the House of Commons.
The Chair would surely be familiar with the phrase that trust is the coin of the realm. In all frankness I would submit that based on the behaviour of the minister of defence the House cannot trust the minister. The chief of defence staff cannot trust the minister.
In Erskine May, 22nd edition, under the section of misconduct of members of the House or officers it states at page 111:
The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.
I encourage the Chair to take into the context of this matter not only the statements that were made in the House but statements that were made in the foyer just outside the House in referencing this entire matter.
Finally, I refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms , sixth edition. At page 25 under section 92, interfering with members, it states:
A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties--
I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that members of the House of Commons must be able to rely on the information they receive in response to questions placed to ministers. This goes to the very cut and thrust of the responsibilities of members of the House of Commons. A high standard has to be met and that standard has not been met by the minister of defence.
In support of my colleague from Portage--Lisgar, I am sure the Chair will want to examine the matter with the gravest seriousness. I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to find that there has been a breach of privilege and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.