Peter Milliken

[Government Response To Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to petitions.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 87, 130 and 132 could be made Orders for Return, those returns would be tabled immediately.

I may say that in respect of Question No. 87, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast has been complaining recently, I will put it politely, that she has not received this information. I am pleased to table it and I hope the week we are not sitting will afford her an opportunity to read the material, given its rather voluminous nature.

I am tabling only one copy here today because of the bulk. The other two copies are in Journals . I am also tabling the Orders for Return of the other two orders agreed to by the House.

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the Kingston area requesting that Parliament delete a section from Bill C-41.

[Committees Of The House, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 65th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of standing committees.

I move that the 65th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Government Response To Petitions, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to certain petitions.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, certain hon. members of the opposition were invited to a briefing on the budget well in advance, a briefing that was not provided to government members. I had no idea what was in the budget until I walked into the House and heard the budget being delivered.

That was not the case with certain members of the opposition who were invited to a briefing. That is standard practice and there is no suggestion in the answer that was given by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington as explained in the memorandum that she has tabled here that there was anything but that procedure followed. She has explained that the procedure she was talking about when she answered the question dealt with events long before budget day.

I refer once again to citation 31 of Beauchesne's which has already been quoted. I need not read it again. I want to remind the Chair that when we had a case of a budget leak with the hon. Michael Wilson during the last Parliament, a major leak in which the whole document got out, there was a question of privilege raised and debated for an entire day in this House on that very issue.

There was never anything referred to a committee. The Chair never made a finding that there had been a breach of the privileges of the members of this House, even though there had been a complete leak of the budget. I think the hon. member for Sherbrooke was in the cabinet at that time.

What I am saying is that there is no evidence of any leak here today in respect of the budget. If there were, according to the citation of Beauchesne's and in accordance with the practice followed in respect of Mr. Wilson's major leak, the whole thing went out. In light of the precedent established then, I submit there is nothing that the House should do to take note of this unless the hon. member for Sherbrooke wishes to set down a motion condemning not the member for Guelph-Wellington but the Minister of Finance for allowing any information to get into her hands.

In the face of the denial, I suggest such a motion is not supported by any evidence and it would be a waste of the time of this House, as is the question raised by the hon. member.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 1995]

I have read the Hill Times and I know the hon. member read the Hill Times . The answer that was given has been fully explained in a reply, given in writing, by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington which was read by the chief government whip a few moments ago.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal very directly with the allegation made by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, supported by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. There was absolutely no question of a budget leak in this case.

There is no evidence that has been adduced by the hon. member to support that, absolutely no evidence.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his speech referred to snake oil. What he neglected to mention was the snake oil in the budget that the hon. member's party presented last week.

The last questioner, my distinguished colleague from Mississauga South, did ask a question. Of course, the hon. member evaded the answer, as every member of his party has when pressed on this issue. What proposals did the member put forward in the budget last week to gut Canada's social programs? Tell Canadians about those. In not one speech in the House have we have heard any clear reference to those guttings of social programs proposed in the Reform budget-