Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege regarding a member of the House who used false representation to gain unjust advantage. The member for Wentworth—Burlington used my signature, without my permission and knowledge, to advance a private member's bill. As a consequence he presented a falsified document to the House.
The circumstances that led to my question of privilege today began in the last session when I seconded Bill C-264, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, which was introduced on October 23, 1997, by the member for Wentworth—Burlington. In that session the member obtained another 112 seconders for this bill.
On June 11, 1998, the member sought unanimous consent to change the text of his bill. He felt that there were some flaws and technical changes that needed to be made, and the House agreed to change the text of the bill. From that point on the House had before it a new version of Bill C-264. By virtue of, I guess I could say, the magic of unanimous consent, I became a seconder to the new bill, an altered Bill C-264, even though I did not second that particular version.
I make no objection to the House changing the bill because it has that authority. My objection is with the original signatories being attached to the new version of the bill and with the member for Wentworth—Burlington for carrying over his invalid support for Bill C-264 into the second session and applying it to the new procedures for Private Members' Business.
In February 1999 the rules regarding Private Members' Business were changed. Under the provisions of Standing Order 87(6) a private member's item is now eligible to be placed in the order of precedence after the sponsor files with the clerk a list containing the signatures of 100 members who support the member's item.
The breach of privilege occurred when the member resubmitted the altered Bill C-264 from the first session to the second session and listed me as a seconder for the purpose of Standing Order 87(6). The bill was given a new number. I did not second Bill C-206. As I mentioned earlier, I did not officially and wilfully second the new version of Bill C-264 from the last session.
What we have here is a very serious matter. The member was obviously aware that his bill had changed yet he kept the original seconders. As a result he falsely represented support for his private member's bill.
I would also charge that the member is guilty of non-disclosure. He never contacted me to advise me of the changes to his bill and to ask if I still supported it. I appreciate that at the subcommittee on Private Members' Business he mentioned the history of Bill C-206, but he failed to mention to the committee that he did not notify the original signatories of the changes he had made to the bill. I would expect that any changes, minor or major, should have been brought to the attention of the members who supported the original bill.
Furthermore, the member failed to disclose to the committee the extent of the changes he had made to his bill. He told the committee that he had only made minor technical changes. This is false and misleading.
I had an analysis done of both bills and I am willing to share a very brief synopsis of this analysis with the House. There would appear to be little question that a number of the revisions to the bill are indeed substantive rather than simply minor wording changes. For example, clause 4 of the revised Bill C-264, now Bill C-206, contains an exemption for information that could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the constitutional integrity of Canada. However in the initial version of Bill C-264 clause 4 did not contain these words.
Perhaps the most notable revision is found in clause 9 of Bill C-206. The proposed section 14.1 contained in clause 9 was not included in the first version of the predecessor bill to Bill C-206, Bill C-264. When it received first reading in the first session of the 36th parliament on October 23, 1997, section 14.1 did not appear in Bill C-264 until it was revised pursuant to an order made on June 11, 1998. The proposed section 14.1 which now appears in Bill C-206 reads:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information on plans, strategies or tactics relating to the possible secession of a part of Canada, including information held or collected for the purpose of developing those plans, strategies or tactics.
The purpose of section 14.1 would allow the government to refuse access to information on plans, strategies or tactics relating to the possible secession of a part of Canada. It differs notably from the current section of the act and the proposed subsection 4(2.1) in that it does not contain the wording “reasonably expected to be injurious to”.
In the absence of this wording it is arguable that the rather high threshold test of reasonable expectation of probable harm would not apply to the information or plans, strategies or tactics relating to the possible secession of a part of Canada. Arguably, then, it would be easier for the government to refuse access to public opinion polls on the subject of national unity and constitutional reform on the basis of the proposed section 14.1, at least to the extent that the polls contain information on plans, strategies or tactics relating to the possible secession of a part of Canada. The bottom line is that I did not and would not second Bill C-206 yet I am recorded as being a seconder.
In conclusion, it is stated in the 22nd edition of Erskine May on pages 110 and 111, and Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 233, that any person who presents documents to the House or committee that have been forged, falsified, altered or fabricated will be found to be in contempt.
The member for Wentworth—Burlington fabricated and falsified support for Bill C-206. He presented this invalid support to the House, which gave him unfair advantage over other private members.
I urge the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider his testimony and determine whether he is in contempt for giving false testimony and for misleading its subcommittee on Private Members' Business. If you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would move the appropriate motion.
