I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was okay if I was quoting. I will refrain from doing it.
It states further:
“The evidence is now very clear that (the Minister of National Defence) deliberately misled the House of Commons...”, said (the member for Lakeland).
(The hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke) added, “I hope that (the Minister of National Defence) will now be willing to come forward and admit that his misleading statements were indeed intentional. Now that his explanation has been contradicted, the right thing to do would be to admit that he deliberately misled the House of Commons, and Canadians”.
I am now quoting from a CBC interview transcript with the hon. member for Lakeland. The questioner asked the hon. member for Lakeland:
We discovered yesterday it took three briefings or three reminders before the Defence Minister clicked, as it were, as to what happened and when. What does that say to you?
The hon. member for Lakeland replied:
Well, I would say what he clicked on is that the Chief of Defence Staff and Deputy Chief of Defence Staff were not going to lie for him on this issue. That's what clicked...The Minister understood things perfectly because he asked questions to clarify. So the Minister knew. He misled Parliament and Canadians through Parliament. To me, that's the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I am now quoting from a transcript of February 1 of a media scrum that took place outside the House of Commons foyer. It involves the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar. The question was:
It's a pretty serious charge that the Prime Minister is lying. What evidence do you have?
The member for Portage--Lisgar stated:
--I cannot believe and I would not want the troops and their families to believe that the Prime Minister was totally unaware for over (a) week of an issue so important to Canada and internationally so important.
The next question was:
You're saying more than that, you're saying he's lying are you not?
The answer from the member for Portage--Lisgar:
I'm asserting that he was aware of this information.
Mr. Speaker, I would add that the Prime Minister had denied both in the House and in public that he was not aware and that is a direct public contradiction of the statements by the Prime Minister of Canada.
I am now quoting from another Alliance press release dated February 22. It involves a quote from the member for Portage--Lisgar:
After concealing this controversial information for eight days, the Minister then gave false information to the House of Commons about when he first learned of the event. It defies reason to suggest that this was an innocent coincidence of honest mistakes. All evidence suggests that the Minister deliberately concealed important information, first through silence, and then through false statements.
Mr. Speaker, the collection of information, and it is not an inclusive list, demonstrates that even though when a member brings a question of privilege, at that particular time and during that motion, as I am doing now, the member is allowed to use a term like misleading the House. That language is not allowed in parliament under normal circumstances and the fact that this charge has been made in the House and referred to committee I would suggest does not give licence for members to be repeating these things outside the House. That is one of the issues here.
I am quoting now from Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition by Joseph Maingot, page 254, under the heading “Reflections on Members and on the House”. It states:
Language spoken during a Parliamentary proceeding that impugns the integrity of members would be unparliamentary and a breach of order contrary to the Standing Orders. But not a breach of privilege.
We find that many times in this House, Mr. Speaker, that you are required to point out to members that their language is not appropriate and in most circumstances they retract the statements. Maingot further states:
Spoken outside the House by a Member the same language reflecting on the Member's Parliamentary capacity would be considered contempt of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that members speak outside this place at their own peril.
There is certainly legal recourse that is available to the offended party. I would also suggest that in my reading of procedure, the Canadian precedents as opposed to the U.K. precedents, even if the offended member chooses the courts as a recourse, it does not preclude this issue being undertaken by the House. In my view it is an offence that would simply be corrected by a retraction and an apology by the offending members.
My final point is that I was a little uncomfortable with the timing of this question of privilege. As we are aware, this issue, the larger issue of the conflicting statements which these comments reference is before the procedure and House affairs committee. I would find no issue with putting this off until that committee has completed its work. The reason I brought it forward today was I felt I had an obligation as a member of the House to bring it to the attention of the House at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, should you find that I have a question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the necessary motion.