Mr. Speaker, I am listening very carefully to the debate and I appreciate very much the hon. member's intervention this afternoon.
On the question of whether or not it is in the purview of Parliament to deal with this, I would point out that the communiqué was written on the letterhead of the official opposition. That makes it very much an issue that this Parliament should deal with.
The Speaker of the House ruled yesterday that it, in fact, does. I would like to point out a couple of citations that may help the member. I would like to say first that Parliament does whatever it wants in the context of contempt of Parliament.
Citation 28 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its Members.
Citation 49 states:
It is not necessary for the courts to come to a decision before the House acts. In 1891 charges were laid in the House against Thomas McGreevy relating to scandals in the Public Works Department. The Committee on Privileges and Elections examined the evidence and concluded that the charges were amply proven-The House judged Mr. McGreevy to be guilty of contempt of the House as well as certain of the charges and ordered his expulsion.
This House ordered his expulsion.
There are other references to support the right of Parliament to charge a member with whatever it wants. I would refer the House
to Joseph Maingot's "Parliamentary Privilege in Canada" at page 192, which states:
While privilege may be codified, contempt may not-there is no closed list of classes of offences punishable as a contempt of Parliament.
I would refer the House to the Speaker's ruling of October 29, 1980, which stated:
The dimensions of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privilege of its Members or of the House. This is precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits.
I hope that helps the hon. member in his deliberations this afternoon.