Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege follows from a point of order I raised on Thursday, February 19. It is in regard to the failure of the President of the Treasury Board to correct misleading information that he presented to Parliament with respect to the sponsorship scandal.
The House has been presented with two versions. On Wednesday during question period the President of the Treasury Board said, and I quote from page 757 of Hansard :
...the member for Calgary Southeast received $115,000 from the sponsorship program--
Following question period, when on a point of order I challenged the veracity of his statement, the minister corrected himself and said, and I quote:
There was $115,000 given to the organization in the hon. member's riding...I said in his riding. It was given two years in a row.
That appears on page 760 of Hansard .
He was challenged by members of the opposition to table the document from which he was evidently citing. Finally, at the end of the same day, he returned to the House and did that at page 784 of Hansard .
However, his having tabled the document, we had an opportunity to review it. It turns out that no such grant existed, that neither I nor my riding nor any organization in my riding received a $115,000 grant from the sponsorship fund, or any other kind of grant whatsoever.
I sought clarification from the President of the Treasury Board, and he has not yet come forward and corrected the misleading information that he presented to the House. It has been four days since I raised this matter and the two versions are still before the House.
On February 1, 2002, the Speaker ruled on a similar matter in regard to the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the minister of defence had deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days.
The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said, and I quote:
The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.
...in the case before us there appears to be in my opinion no dispute as to the facts. I believe that both the minister and...hon. members recognize that two versions of events have been presented to the House.
As was the case involving the minister of defence, the records of the House will show that there is no dispute as to the facts: that two versions of events have been presented to the House by the President of the Treasury Board. He has offered a verbal statement that states one thing and tabled a document that says something else altogether.
The President of the Treasury Board has refused to advise the House which statement is true. He is in contempt for failing to uphold the traditions of this place and for knowingly providing the House with false and misleading information.