Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member's question of privilege. I will bring forth a few quotes but first I will put this in perspective.
Approximately a week ago I raised a very similar issue which I am waiting for a ruling upon. This strikes at the very heart of democracy. It strikes at the very heart of what we do in this place. If we make decisions as a Parliament and those decisions are completely ignored and gone contrary to by a minister of the crown, that minister of the crown must be found in contempt of this Parliament. That is what is at the heart of this issue.
After reading the answer that the minister gave yesterday to that question, the first thing that occurred to me was, what is cash management. If we vote in the House to de-fund something, that program can no longer exist because Parliament has clearly indicated it no longer has confidence in that program when it no longer funds it. That program should have ceased. That did not happen, and that should be contempt of Parliament.
The minister is hiding money. He is deceiving Parliament by allowing a program to continue to be funded without explaining to us how that funding is taking place. Without this transparency the House cannot function and, by extension, democracy cannot function. The Canadian people are also being kept in the dark because we cannot get answers to these questions.
On page 141 of the nineteenth 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.
That is what we are talking about and that is one of the issues with regard to what is being raised here today.
I also would like to read from Erskine May's twenty-first edition. He describes contempt as:
...any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
That is what is happening here.
We have made a decision. We are trying to function as a House and the minister is thwarting that. He is going against the entire intention that the House clearly signalled when it did not fund the gun registry.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would rule in favour of the issue raised here. The minister clearly is in contempt of Parliament. I hope you will give this due consideration.