Peter Milliken

[The Late Hon. Eugène Marquis, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express the sorrow of members in our party on the death of Mr. Marquis. I do know that the hon. member for Bellechasse is that gentleman's nephew. I am sorry for him, his family and the family of the deceased that this event happened today. I extend to the hon. member all the respect which members of this House have for former members and that certainly applies to this member for Kamouraska who served his country well a long time ago. I offer the sincere condolences of all members on this side of the House to his family.

[Motions For Papers, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 16th, 1994]

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

[Government Response To Petitions, November 16th, 1994]

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

[Order In Council Appointments, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were made by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

[Point Of Order, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think the remarks made by the chief government whip and by the member for Ottawa-Vanier ought to be more than sufficient to put this matter to rest.

They indicate very clearly that while there may be a complaint there is not any basis for a point of order or indeed a question of privilege arising out of the publication of a report in two volumes. I think it is commonplace that reports are published in more than one volume. Here we have a report that with the appendices comes to five volumes as I count them. That is what is available from distribution if members ask.

There is one further technical point I invite Your Honour to consider in reviewing this matter. Standing Order 108(1) which permits dissenting opinions and which was a change in the standing orders made during the last Parliament largely at the behest of members of this party applies only to standing committees.

This is the report of a special joint committee. The fact there was a dissenting opinion was thanks to the good graces of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the members of the committee who agreed to apply this rule to the special joint committee because it would not otherwise apply.

The changes to the standing orders were made in respect only of standing committees. It has never been applied beyond that. This was a special benefit, if you like, conferred by the generous hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and his co-chair of the special joint committee.

I am surprised there would be complaints today when we have very lengthy dissenting opinions. I may say that the dissenting opinions as I see it are almost as long as the report. Here we have a second volume that is thicker than the report itself.

I am not surprised that the report has been divided into two volumes. I think a satisfactory explanation as to why that was done has been given both by the chief government whip in his very able argument and by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.

[Points Of Order, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested in her comments that she was having trouble establishing the incompetence of the Department of Canadian Heritage and for very good reason. That is because it is headed by a very competent minister and is very well administered. I will leave that part of her remarks aside and deal with the substance of the procedural point that I know she wanted to deal with in her remarks. She got sidetracked by these kinds of partisan comments about the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The fact is that the parliamentary secretary who was here last night to answer was not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who was unable to be present last evening. She found herself in a position of having been given a set of notes in anticipation of a question on the subject that was not hers to deal with and that she had to give on the spur of the moment. As it turned out it was the wrong set of notes for the wrong question. A mixup had occurred for reasons beyond her control.

Accordingly she felt it inappropriate for her to attempt to come up with an answer to the hon. member's four-minute address on the issue. I may say the suggestion the hon. member has made, that the answer be given tonight on the late show in a special two-minute addition to the late show or a two-minute feature for the parliamentary secretary to give the answer, is one that is quite satisfactory as far as the government is concerned.

I am pleased, if the House agrees it be done, that the two-minute address be given tonight. I realize the hon. member would not have her four-minute speech before it but she gave it last night. We will have the four minutes last night and the two minutes tonight and I think everybody will be happy and in fact pleased to agree.

[Privilege, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a valid point at least in respect of his opening remarks when he stated that the practice of this House has been that committee reports are confidential until they are tabled in the House. I believe he was also correct when he indicated it was a contempt of the House for any person to release the contents of such a report prior to its tabling in the House. Indeed that has been dealt with as a contempt of the House on past occasions.

I may say that if the hon. member could determine the malefactor in this case that person could be brought before the House and the contempt purged in the appropriate way. That would be entirely appropriate. It could be done either here or in the committee and the committee could bring in a report and the matter dealt with. Having said that, I assume he does not know who the malefactor is and given that we are in a position where I do not know that we can deal with that particular contempt of the House in this case, or indeed in some others that have occurred in the course of this Parliament.

However, the second point that his own personal privileges have been violated is another matter. I recognize that in refraining from making comments until the report was made public this afternoon he may have somehow found that his privileges have been affected. It is a matter that could be studied.

I would be happy to have the matter referred to the procedure and House affairs committee that I have the honour to chair for review. We may have something useful to say on it after hearing what he has to say, I do not know. Whether it is a fact of substantial interference with his ability to carry on his work as a member of Parliament I am not sure.

I invite Your Honour to consider the point that he has raised. If Your Honour finds a prima facie case, I can say that the committee will be happy to undertake the appropriate study should it come our way.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I ask all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 47 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.