Speeches

{
    "objects": [
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:00:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "The Speaker",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>The Chair has notice of a question of privilege. I recognize first the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/the-speaker-1/",
            "politician_url": null,
            "politician_membership_url": null,
            "procedural": true,
            "source_id": "",
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:00:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage--Lisgar, Canadian Alliance)",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 48. I regret that I must bring this matter to your attention today.</p>\n<p>It has been demonstrated that the Minister of National Defence has deliberately misled the House. <em>Hansard</em> has recorded his misleading statement. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has picked up the admission of that misleading statement while the minister was scrummed outside the House after question period yesterday. I have that tape, Mr. Speaker, and I will submit it to you.</p>\n<p>The minister has not apologized to the House for his misleading statements nor has he made any attempt to clear the record in this place. I view this conduct to be inconsistent with the standards that the House and the public expect from its members. Accordingly, the Minister of National Defence is in contempt of the House.</p>\n<p>On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, the Minister of National Defence, in response to a question in the House, stated that he learned about the involvement of Canadian troops taking prisoners in Afghanistan on Friday, January 25, 2002. The minister said at that time:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday. It required further examination to determine whether in fact Canadians were involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yesterday, in response to a follow up question, the minister said, and I quote:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Mr. Speaker, I was first informed about the detention of prisoners and the mission within 24 hours of when it actually occurred.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Mr. Speaker, if the minister knew within 24 hours, then the minister learned of the incident on Monday, January 21 or, at the latest, on Tuesday, January 22.</p>\n<p>After question period, during the scrum outside the Chamber, the minister admitted that he indeed misled the House. He said that he regretted giving the House false information. As I said earlier, I have the tape and can make it available.</p>\n<p>On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May it states:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May it states:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>At page 234 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's <em>Parliamentary Privilege in Canada</em> , it explains that in order for the Speaker to find a prima facie case in a matter involving a deliberate misleading statement, there must be \u201can admission by someone in authority, such as a minister of the crown or an officer of a department\u201d.</p>\n<p>Mr. Speaker, we have two contradictory statements by the minister recorded in <em>Hansard.</em> One was made on Tuesday, January 29 and one was made on Wednesday, January 30. We have videotape showing the minister admitting to misleading the House in regard to these statements.</p>\n<p>The evidence that I have presented is prima facie. The records of the House as well as the video records of the media confirm that the minister knowingly misled the House.</p>\n<p>Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/brian-william-pallister-1/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/220/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1608/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:05:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC/DR)",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my friend on this question of privilege. I believe you will find that there is ample evidence before the House that in the vernacular there has been a clear departure from accuracy and precision in matters of grave importance that have come before the House.</p>\n<p>In a time of war members on behalf of their constituent Canadians have a right to expect clear and concise information from ministers of the government. I would argue that in all matters the truth should be laid bare before the House. Surely there are times when the country might accept that for the protection of life and limb certain information must be kept secret, but this is not the case in this instance.</p>\n<p>We have before us an after the fact reporting of events in a way that is inconsistent and contradictory. This leaves doubts in the minds of many including perhaps and more important, I would argue, members of our military at a time when they require and rightly fully demand unfettered laser precision instructions and interpretation from their government and from the minister.</p>\n<p>This involves neither ignorance nor maladministration. It involves a deliberate passing of misinformation to members of the House of Commons. My friend has recited the facts as they appear in <em>Hansard</em> .</p>\n<p>I will review them. On Tuesday we had the minister of defence clearly indicating in response to a question from the Bloc Quebecois when he first knew of the taking of prisoners by Canadian troops. As reported in <em>Hansard</em> :</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>That was January 25.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>It required further examination to determine whether in fact Canadians were involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yesterday, Wednesday--</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/peter-mackay-1/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/peter-mackay/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/2546/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:05:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "The Speaker",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Order, please. We do not need to go through all the facts several times here. We have heard them from the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar.</p>\n<p>I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough would add anything new to what has been stated on this point, but I do not think we need to go through the whole thing two or three times.</p>\n<p>I have heard the offending statements. If he has something else that he felt was offensive, I would be happy to hear it and any argument he may have on those facts; but having heard them, I do not think we need them repeated.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/the-speaker-2/",
            "politician_url": null,
            "politician_membership_url": null,
            "procedural": true,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:05:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Peter MacKay",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, with respect to precedent I also refer the Chair, again with respect to the trust that ministers should have in information placed before them, to <em>The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government</em> by Eugene Forsey and G. C. Eglington. I am sure the Chair is familiar with this publication. It was used extensively by the McGrath commission. At page 19 it reads:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The cornerstone of our constitution is the Sovereign whose government is carried on in Her several realms.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It goes on further to say:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>--government is a trust which the Sovereign discharges; it is a trust that cannot be thrown up or ignored in some nihilistic whim.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In the same publication, speaking of responsibilities of ministers, the authors write:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>It entails frankness and openness with the sovereign or her personal representative and a proper respect for the royal or vice regal right to warn and advise.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This pertains directly to the information that members of parliament should expect in all statements and information passed by ministers to the House of Commons.</p>\n<p>The Chair would surely be familiar with the phrase that trust is the coin of the realm. In all frankness I would submit that based on the behaviour of the minister of defence the House cannot trust the minister. The chief of defence staff cannot trust the minister.</p>\n<p>In Erskine May, 22nd edition, under the section of misconduct of members of the House or officers it states at page 111:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I encourage the Chair to take into the context of this matter not only the statements that were made in the House but statements that were made in the foyer just outside the House in referencing this entire matter.</p>\n<p>Finally, I refer to Beauchesne's <em>Parliamentary Rules &amp; Forms</em> , sixth edition. At page 25 under section 92, interfering with members, it states:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties--</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that members of the House of Commons must be able to rely on the information they receive in response to questions placed to ministers. This goes to the very cut and thrust of the responsibilities of members of the House of Commons. A high standard has to be met and that standard has not been met by the minister of defence.</p>\n<p>In support of my colleague from Portage--Lisgar, I am sure the Chair will want to examine the matter with the gravest seriousness. I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to find that there has been a breach of privilege and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/peter-mackay-2/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/peter-mackay/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/2546/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:10:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ)",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the reasons stated by my two colleagues. I would say that I might feel more concerned than anybody else because the answers that were provided to me on Tuesday did not reflect the reality, according to the minister's own statement a few hours and a few days later and according to the Prime Minister's answers.</p>\n<p>However, Mr. Speaker, so that we can get to the bottom of this sad affair and sad behaviour, I am asking you to delay your ruling for a few days so that we can question, here in the House, all the people involved in this matter. Our duty is to determine what went on. Right now, I am not at all convinced that the minister is the only one who misled the House. I wonder whether the minister was the only one who acted wrongly, consciously and deliberately, or rather whether he was not acting like someone protecting others.</p>\n<p>Is he the only one responsible for this ludicrous situation or is he being a good trooper, covering for others? This is what we have to determine.</p>\n<p>I find that not only the minister's answers but also those of the Prime Minister seem wrong. They do not seem to reflect reality. I feel that there is a cover-up here, and that is disturbing.</p>\n<p>I respectfully ask you to consider the good reasons stated by my two colleagues but also to delay your ruling so that we can continue to question the minister and those who were in collusion with him in this matter.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/gilles-duceppe-1/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/gilles-duceppe/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/3287/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:15:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point which was omitted but which is quite important, I think.</p>\n<p>According to Marleau and Montpetit at page 433, generally in a case such as this one:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>--the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It cites rulings of March 4, 1988; February 12, 1992; March 27, 1992; and October 6, 1994.</p>\n<p>However this case is different. It is not a case of disagreement. The facts are that the minister told the House he knew on Friday that the Canadian forces were involved in arrests in Afghanistan. The fact is that he has since told the House that he actually knew last Monday.</p>\n<p>This is becoming a question of privilege that differs totally from the situation where some members think one way and other members think another. The facts are there.</p>\n<p>Mr. Speaker, I think it is your responsibility to look into this and to hand down a ruling on the issue. I join with my colleagues in requesting that this problem be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to have it dealt with.</p>\n<p>Furthermore, I ask the minister to give the House and the committee all documents pertaining to this matter, so that all the facts can be considered.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/yvon-godin-1/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/yvon-godin/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/2521/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:15:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR)",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, as the <em>Bloc qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois</em> leader said, other ministers could be implicated in this matter. The House must look into this. However, the situation is clear: Friday, the Minister of National Defence said one thing in the House and, later on, he said another thing altogether. It is obvious that he was not telling the truth in the House.</p>\n<p>However, our country is facing very unusual and exceptional circumstances. We are involved in an armed conflict. Canadian troops are now in Afghanistan. They have to be able to rely on the support of a minister who is both strong and in command here at home. However, they cannot trust the current minister. He waited eight days to tell anyone that Canadian troops had captured some prisoners.</p>\n<p>Our troops must know that the information concerning to their activities is in fact transmitted to senior members of government, since the knowledge\u2014</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/joe-clark-1/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/joe-clark/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1545/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:15:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "The Speaker",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Order, please. I am seeking help with the point of procedure now before the House concerning the connection between the Canadian Forces and the minister. It is not important for the point of procedure being discussed today.</p>\n<p>I trust the hon. member will discuss only this point of procedure, and nothing else. If he has something more to say on this score, I will hear him.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/the-speaker-3/",
            "politician_url": null,
            "politician_membership_url": null,
            "procedural": true,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:15:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Right Hon. Joe Clark",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, I totally accept your instructions. However, I would like to raise the following point. What we have here is a situation where our troops are engaged in a conflict where they are at risk. This situation is absolutely abnormal for the House of Commons.</p>\n<p>The House of Commons should always be able to count on the whole truth on the part of a minister. However, in time of crisis, it is all the more important. That is all I wanted to add to the debate at this time.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/joe-clark-2/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/joe-clark/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1545/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:15:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "The Speaker",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>I think I have heard enough on this matter. I listened to the right hon. member because he is a former minister. Every party has had an opportunity to say something except the minister. I think it is time to hear the minister.</p>\n<p>Is there some additional information on this? Very briefly, the hon. member for Lakeland.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/the-speaker-4/",
            "politician_url": null,
            "politician_membership_url": null,
            "procedural": true,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:20:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out the gravity of the situation and the way it has cast negative aspersions on our troops. Today is a day we should be congratulating the JTF2 for the great work they have done for the country. Instead we have this fiasco.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/leon-benoit-1/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/leon-benoit/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1560/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:20:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "The Speaker",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>I am trying to deal with the procedural point. I think we are ready to hear from the minister on this now.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/the-speaker-5/",
            "politician_url": null,
            "politician_membership_url": null,
            "procedural": true,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:20:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that at no time have I intended to mislead the House. I have the highest respect for the House and its members and I have always operated in a very straightforward fashion.</p>\n<p>The question I answered on Tuesday from the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois I answered in the context of a photograph I had seen on Friday for the first time. When I saw the photograph for the first time I did not connect it with a briefing I had received the previous Monday and the operation our troops had been involved in the day before.</p>\n<p>I do receive daily briefings on a number of matters. I was in Mexico City on that day on a bilateral visit with our counterparts in the Mexican government. I was briefed on that occasion. I did not instantly go to phone the Prime Minister. He and I had discussed the matter the week before at a joint meeting of the foreign affairs and SCONDVA committees. We had discussed it in terms of the policy issue and how we would conduct ourselves should we get into a situation involving the taking of prisoners. It is based on the longstanding procedure of following international and Canadian law and the turning over of troops to our allies, in this case the United States, as I clearly indicated when I appeared before the foreign affairs and defence committees.</p>\n<p>Furthermore, I waited until I returned home to seek further clarity on a number of aspects of this. There was at the same time a growing controversy about how the United States was handling the prisoners and determining their status. I returned home on Thursday night to Ottawa. On Friday afternoon for the first time I saw a photograph which at first I thought was not connected to what I had been briefed on earlier in the week. Subsequently in discussions with the chief of defence staff and deputy chief of defence staff I learned it was indeed connected. I want to make it clear that they have been absolutely excellent in their briefing of me and in providing me the information in a timely and concise fashion.</p>\n<p>Subsequently through further discussion with them I realized there was a connection between the photograph and the briefing on Monday. However the photograph brought to me a new clarity and understanding about the mission they had briefed me on previously, so when I got up in the House and responded to the matter on Friday I believed I was seeing something that was new and in a different context from the briefing I had received earlier in the week.</p>\n<p>It was in that light that I gave the answer I did on Tuesday to the question from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. Subsequently on Wednesday I made it quite clear that I had received appropriate briefings from the chief of defence staff the previous week.</p>\n<p>Again, at no time did I intend to mislead the House. I was answering with what I believed to be the correct information, and I will continue to conduct myself in that fashion in the House.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/art-eggleton-1/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/4882/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/3245/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:20:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "The Speaker",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>There are two members rising. I am prepared to take this matter under advisement and consider it. I do not want to get into an argument here. I want to hear only something on procedure if that is what is coming up. Otherwise I am not going to hear any more.</p>\n<p>The hon. member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/the-speaker-6/",
            "politician_url": null,
            "politician_membership_url": null,
            "procedural": true,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:20:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Gilles Duceppe",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, the minister did not speak about procedure; he spoke about the answer he gave me Tuesday, a wrong answer.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/gilles-duceppe-2/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/gilles-duceppe/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/3287/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:20:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "The Speaker",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>The minister answered in connection with the process raised in the House by the hon. members for Portage\u2014Lisgar and Pictou\u2014Antigonish\u2014Guysborough.</p>\n<p>It is important that he be allowed to defend himself against allegations made by other members. That is all he did. But now is not the time to give answers on that. I ask hon. members to stick to the point of procedure.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/the-speaker-7/",
            "politician_url": null,
            "politician_membership_url": null,
            "procedural": true,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:25:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Gilles Duceppe",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, as an element of procedure, and also to provide clarification for your ruling, as the minister has I imagine, I will just point out that I made no mention whatsoever in the question I asked of any photo.</p>\n<p>In order to provide the context as the minister has done, I too was in Mexico when the minister was there. He was surrounded by key members of his military staff, discussing continental defence in light of the September 11 events. Even with the slight jet lag from the time difference between Mexico and here, I was capable of differentiating in my question between a matter of fact and a photograph.</p>\n<p>In order to put things clearly in context, I would point out to the Chair that there was a special debate Monday night. The minister was aware of all these facts and had had several days to reflect on his memory lapse. So, he either deliberately misled the House or he is totally clueless, and whichever is the case, these are not ministerial qualities.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/gilles-duceppe-3/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/gilles-duceppe/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/3287/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:25:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "Mr. Leon Benoit",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>Mr. Speaker, I want you to have the full information before you make a decision on the issue. I would like some clarification from the minister with respect to his comments. What does seeing the photographs have to do with the whole issue, other than that is what caused him to get caught in his deception?</p>\n<p>Can the minister explain it? I do not understand and I am sure Canadians do not understand.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/leon-benoit-2/",
            "politician_url": "/politicians/leon-benoit/",
            "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1560/",
            "procedural": false,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        },
        {
            "time": "2002-01-31 10:25:00",
            "attribution": {
                "en": "The Speaker",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "content": {
                "en": "<p>It is not a question period. This is a procedural argument. While I know we would like to ask questions of one another at this time, I am not sure it is entirely appropriate.</p>\n<p>The time has come for me to take this matter under advisement. We have heard the arguments on both sides. I will get back to the House in due course. I thank in particular the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar and the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for their interventions.</p>\n<p>I would also like to thank the hon. members for Laurier\u2014Sainte-Marie, Acadie\u2014Bathurst and Lakeland, as well as the minister. I appreciate all of the comments and will get back to the House shortly on this matter.</p>",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "url": "/debates/2002/1/31/the-speaker-8/",
            "politician_url": null,
            "politician_membership_url": null,
            "procedural": true,
            "source_id": "",
            "h2": {
                "en": "Privilege",
                "fr": ""
            },
            "document_url": "/debates/2002/1/31/"
        }
    ],
    "pagination": {
        "offset": 0,
        "limit": 20,
        "next_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2002%2F1%2F31%2F&limit=20&offset=20",
        "previous_url": null
    }
}