Mr. Speaker, on February 28 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister raised a question of privilege claiming that the dignity of the House was in question and suggested that it had something to do with statements I made outside the House.
I have the utmost respect for the House, its members and the authority of the Speaker. I have the utmost respect even for the member for Leeds--Grenville but I take offence to these kinds of accusations.
The member's charge of contempt involves my charge of contempt against his colleague, the Minister of National Defence. His case appears to be more a prima facie case of tit for tat than it is one of contempt.
I raised my question of privilege against the Minister of National Defence because I believed that parliament deserved, and its members required, truthful and precise information. The fact that it was a minister of the crown involved made it that much more serious because the principle of ministerial responsibility provides the foundation of our constitutional system for the control of power. Providing parliament with accurate information and being responsible for that information is a key responsibility of a minister.
The parliamentary secretary would have us believe that he is protecting the dignity of the House. The way I see it and the way Canadians will see it is that the Prime Minister through his parliamentary secretary is trying to protect the Minister of National Defence and the reputation of his government. If he were interested in the dignity of the House he would not be trying to censor the opposition from exposing his government's disrespectful and dismissive view of the House and its members. As John Diefenbaker once said:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends.
My accuser is noticeably upset with my charge of contempt against his colleague, the Minister of National Defence. He desperately wants the criticism of the way his government is handling this issue to end but it will not end. If anything, the way in which the government has responded to this criticism will encourage it.
My responsibility and the responsibility of members on this side of the House is to protect Canadians from the tyranny of the majority. Such tyranny must be guarded against. We saw ample evidence of that this morning in the committee examining the ambassadorial appointment of former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano.
The government has aborted the committee's inquiry into the defence minister's conflicting statements about prisoners in Afghanistan in order to prevent further embarrassment for the minister. Liberal MPs vehemently opposed requests for more evidence after going through a preliminary round of 11 witnesses. The Liberals on the committee used their majority to defeat motions, to call witnesses, to gather more facts, to get more information, to recall the minister, and to resolve questions raised by contradictions between his testimony and that of the Canadian military chief of staff.