Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond to the words of the government House leader who talked about private meetings and how they relate to this matter. I cannot imagine how the government House leader would think that a briefing of the media could in any way be interpreted as a private meeting.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to Erskine May's 21st edition, page 115. It states that an offence for contempt may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence. It is, therefore, impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to contempt, the part punished for such an offence being of its nature discretionary.
These situations happen far too often. I refer to Commons Debates of November 20, 1996, at page 6505, when I stated in the House: That I had been advised that tomorrow''-being November 21-members of Parliament will not be given a copy of the report by the royal commission on aboriginal affairs. It will be given to the press, to the media, but not to members of Parliament.
You, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair replied that I would appreciate the word "inchoate" because it would not happen until the following day. Because I raised it as a matter of privilege, the government went out of its way to ensure that a few copies of the report of the royal commission were delivered in order that my question of privilege would be negated before the offence took place.
The meeting was at 9 a.m. it is now 10.10 a.m. Therefore I would state that the contempt has taken place and must be ruled on accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw your attention to a situation of some time ago where I raised a question of privilege regarding questions I have had on the Order Paper for almost two years. There have been some quotes in the newspapers-