Mr. Speaker, what Canadians find despicable is when someone brings into this chamber false information.
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 41% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians find despicable is when someone brings into this chamber false information.
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the member said that we are dragging our feet in the public accounts committee. I believe it was the member for Toronto—Danforth today who tabled a motion asking that all ministers on this file be before the committee next Thursday, with unlimited time. How is that dragging our feet?
I also noted that at the meeting this morning the Auditor General said the Prime Minister and the government have taken this issue seriously and have implemented measures along the lines recommended in her report. What is the problem?
Supplementary Estimates (B), 2003-04 February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I have a copies of the supplementary estimates documents for 2003-04 and a list of the recommended distributions to the appropriate standing committees for consideration of the supplementary estimates.
I also have copies of the supplementary estimates for the Prime Minister, leaders of the parties in the House, and the Treasury Board critics of the opposition parties, and of course, copies will be available for all other members.
Points of Order February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am only too willing to table the document. It is on the website. If the hon. member checks my remarks in the House, he will see that I said I would be only too willing to make copies for all members, which I undertook to do. I am more than willing to give it to them, but they can actually go to the website. There is the document.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
That is not what he said.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
Members say that it is different. The member in his statement to the House said that he was tabling the document. He only tabled two of five pages. He has a duty to be honest in the House and he has failed in that duty.
When a member comes to the House with false information, when he comes forward with incomplete information, he has committed a contempt of the House.
This, Mr. Speaker, is in many ways little different from the very question we dealt with in committee around the production of incomplete information by the then privacy commissioner. As a matter of information on that, it was found at that time that person no longer had the confidence of the chamber because the information he put forward was incomplete.
The evidence is before you, Mr. Speaker. You have the document, you have the statements of the member and you have the original document which I am tabling now. I would urge you to consider this and help us understand what the duties are on members before the House. Should you agree that there is a prima facie case, I am prepared to move a motion.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
Okay, Mr. Speaker, the document is incomplete.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am indeed rising on a question of privilege on a matter that arises out of matters that occurred earlier today in the House, and I am prepared, upon you making a finding of a prima facie case of privilege, to move the appropriate motion.
Today in question period, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stood up and raised questions with the Prime Minister about actions that he was, as the opposition has been for a while, trying to twist the facts in a manner that allowed people to feel that there was a problem.
He asked a question that he based on a memo. The implication in the question, because the Prime Minister had indicated that certain companies should be added to a list of companies who were able to bid, was that somehow he had fraudulent knowledge because he had done that.
The Prime Minister stood up in response and said that he was quite content to have the whole document tabled in the House and that would be self-explanatory.
The member stood up after question period and said that earlier in question period he had asked the Prime Minister about a document, an internal memo that came from his office in 1994, that pertained to retail debt strategy. He said that the Prime Minister indicated at that time he had no difficulty with that document being tabled. He said that he had a copy of that and he would like to table it in the House today, and he did so.
Upon receiving that document, we had a look at it to verify that it was indeed the document the member tabled, and it was recorded that he had tabled a two page document.
I have a copy of the original document, which I am prepared to table today, which is in fact five pages long. It contains the very explanation the Prime Minister gave, that this was a general document trying to expand the range of companies, not narrow it as was suggested.
However, there is a more serious issue here, and it does not have to do with the political debate. It has to do with the duty of members to come forward forthrightly and honestly to this chamber.
You, Mr. Speaker, would not allow me to question the integrity or the veracity of other members. That would be against our rules, and we do that because we have a duty as members. We are seen as hon. members here and believe to be coming forth honourably.
Unfortunately, when the member puts forward an altered document in some attempt to bolster his case, what the member has done I believe is--
Criminal Code February 18th, 2004
moved:
That Bill C-12, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 20 on page 24 with the following:
“27. If Bill C-7, introduced in the 3rd Session of the 37th Parliament and entitled the Public Safety Act, 2002 (the “other Act”), receives royal assent and section 10 of this Act comes into force before the coming into force of any provision of the definition “offence” in section 183 of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 108 of the other Act, then, on the later of that assent and the coming into force of that section 10, paragraph (a) of the definition “offence” in section 183 of the Criminal Code, as enacted by that section 108, is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (xxvii):
(xxvii.1) section 162 (voyeurism),”
Criminal Code February 18th, 2004
moved:
That Bill C-12, in Clause 6, be amended:
(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 45 on page 5 with the following:
“vend, annonce, rend accessible ou a”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 1 on page 6 with the following:
“de vendre, d'annoncer ou de rendre”