Peter Milliken

[Starred Questions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, due to the number and length of responses, I ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.

[Starred Questions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 99, 103, and 114.

*Question No. 99-

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 76, 88 and 108.

Question No. 76-

[Committees Of The House, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I think you will also find unanimous consent for the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper under motions for concurrence in the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Friday, December 9, 1994.

I move that the motion be passed and that the report be concurred in. I think you will find there is disposition on the part of the House to adopt that motion, of which notice has been given today, without debate or amendment.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Committees Of The House, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present today the fifty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs relating to the list of committee members.

With leave of the House, I intend to move concurrence in the 56th report later this day.

I move that the 56th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Government Response To Petitions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 215 petitions.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion and I believe the hon. member for Roberval will second this motion. I move:

That the House shall not sit on December 16, 1994 provided that it shall be deemed to have sat and adjourned on that day for the purposes of Standing Order 28.

[Privilege, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw your attention to words used by the hon. member in expressing his question of privilege.

I will quote only two examples. For example, he said that the minister's answer implied something. Different people may draw different implications from words that are used, whether in the question or in the answer. I think it is entirely proper for a minister to provide an answer to a written inquiry which may be an answer that is not agreed to by the member receiving the answer.

Sometimes that may provoke the member to ask more specific questions. If the hon. member had asked what was the result of the non-signing of an agreement in area x he might have received a different answer to the question he asked on the Order Paper for which a much more general answer was provided.

I note that the minister, in answer to the hon. member's point the other day, tabled a supplementary response. This is unusual but it is perfectly proper for the minister to do that. He did it in order to satisfy the anxieties the hon. member raised the other day when he suggested that somehow the answer was misleading.

I want to suggest when the government prepares answers to questions in this House it prepares them as of the date the question is asked. Occasionally when the answer comes to me a month, two months or four months later-and sometimes they are late, we have had that experience recently-the answer is wrong because events have changed in a notorious way so that even I know they are wrong. Then I say I think we should update

the answer and give an answer that is correct as of the date we are tabling the reply.

I suspect that part of the problem the hon. member encountered in this case is that the information available to the department on the date the question was put was different from the information when the answer was tabled some two months later. Additional or supplementary information was provided by the minister this morning. I tabled that on the minister's behalf.

In light of all that I do not understand how the hon. member can argue that his ability to perform his functions as a member of Parliament have been impaired by this answer. That is the nub of the issue on a question of privilege. If his ability to perform his functions are impaired, I suggest to him the thing for him to do is put more questions on the Order Paper and ask more detailed questions so he gets more detailed answers.

I am sure if he does that he will get the answers he wants. But reading from selective reports and then suggesting that because those reports are different from the answer when, as the minister has pointed out there are many reports, is not correct. It is not fair.

It is not impairing the hon. member's ability to carry on his functions. He is obviously able to carry them on because he has all the reports in his possession and is able to read and quote from them in this House. If that is the case how are his abilities impaired, and if they are not, there is no question of privilege.

[Tributes, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today is the last working day on the floor of the House for our chief page, André Fréchette. He has had an amazing term of service in this House. What is more amazing is that the 41 years he has worked here represents more than 80 per cent of his life and I do not mean working life.

Of the 10 Prime Ministers who have been in office since the beginning of his employment in this House, nine have benefited from time to time from his assistance. I am certain there is no other living Canadian who can claim to have personally assisted nine Prime Ministers not to mention 14 leaders of the opposition, scores of cabinet ministers and probably more than 1,000 members of Parliament.

During his years of service he has learned more about the House and its workings than most members. He always seems to be the first to know what is going to happen in the House, often being able to provide helpful advice to members and to other staff.

Mr. Fréchette started his career with the House as a page when he was barely into his teens and it is only just that he should retire now while he is still a youngish man.

We will miss him very much in this House, Mr. Speaker, but of course we will be reminded of his presence on a daily basis because of the very able staff that he has trained to function in his absence.

Mr. Fréchette, we wish you a long and happy retirement.

[Canadian Flag, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, a resolution of the House of Commons approved the new Canadian flag. Today, we are celebrating this major event.

This flag originated at the Royal Military College in Kingston.

There one day in early 1964 the Hon. George Stanley, who was then the Dean of Arts at the Royal Military College, pointed out the RMC flag to a member of this House's flag committee, the Hon. John Matheson, who was then the member for the county of

Leeds, for the constituency of Leeds, and is a cousin of mine. Mr. Matheson's design was subsequently adopted as the Canadian flag after a very long and bitter debate in this Chamber.

Today all Canadians are proud of our great flag. Long may it wave over a strong and united Canada.