The Chair has heard the arguments advanced by all hon. members on this point. The Chair has had occasion to rule previously on items of this kind. The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has raised these kinds of matters when ministers have made statements outside the House that he wishes had been made in the House.
I know that many members from both sides of the House are always making the same suggestion to the Chair, that is to do something about this situation which they think is terrible.
I am somewhat constrained because, as the minister has pointed out, there has been a string of decisions on this matter that it is not for the Chair to intervene and not a breach of the privileges of the House for ministers to make statements concerning government policy outside the House. That position has been maintained for a very long time.
The hon. House leader of the official opposition in his very capable argument suggested that the report of the committee on modernization recently adopted by the House had somehow changed that.
While I recognize that there are words in the report that would be of solace to any member making the argument he was advancing, I question whether the report has changed the situation such that failure to make a statement in the House has become a question of breach of privileges of the House. This after all is a very grave matter and one which has to be treated with the utmost seriousness.
I recognize there is some frustration that the report has perhaps not been followed in its spirit and intent. Hon. members in making their question of privilege today have drawn that to the attention of the government House leader who, I have no doubt, will probably be reading the arguments over again for several nights running with great interest given his concern to see that the modernization report is implemented. I believe he was a member of the committee that helped come up with the recommendations so I know his interest in it will be substantial.
I find there is no question of privilege here but I have one other matter that I want to draw the attention of hon. members while I am on my feet. I would remind all hon. members that apart from the one hour notice requirement for questions of privilege there are other rules governing notice of intention to raise a question of privilege. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , the Marleau and Montpetit book we all read so rigorously, at pages 123 and 124 describes them as follows:
The notice submitted to the Speaker should contain four elements:
It should indicate that the Member is writing to give notice of his or her intention to raise a question of privilege.
It should state that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
It should indicate the substance of the matter that the Member proposes to raise by way of a question of privilege.
It should include the text of the motion which the Member must be ready to propose to the House should the Speaker rule that the matter is a prima facie question of privilege.
The letters I have been receiving lately have been deficient in respect of these matters. I draw them to the attention of the hon. members in case some time I fire the letter back and say I will not hear it today and you will have to send me proper notice. Notice has been accordingly given. Of course we all want to comply with the rules.