Peter Milliken

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 31st, 1994]

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

[Government Response To Petitions, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 17 petitions.

[Immigration Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent of the House that we go to Statements by Ministers, interrupting whatever business may be in progress at one o'clock this day, as arranged.

The proposal is that at one o'clock whatever business is before the House be then interrupted so that we can go Statements by Ministers for the purpose of allowing the Prime Minister to make a statement.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

I say to hon. members, listen to the facts. Some of them were not here this morning when the minister made his remarks. Of course they did not have notice of it so they probably did not understand it when he delivered it. The minister came into the House and said: "Here are the facts of the case". He produced his letter of March 13, tabled it in the House, and read the letter into the record.

Let me read what the minister's letter says. He says he is writing about a problem and then he said: "I would be most grateful if you could give this application due consideration". Did he say special treatment? No. Did he say fancy treatment, something out of the ordinary? No. He said due consideration. Then he said: "I trust that you will keep me abreast of any developments in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information", a standard letter that a member of Parliament representing a constituent would send.

If hon. members opposite will not send that kind of letter I suggest to them they are not doing their job for their constituents. Here was a minister diligently doing his duty as a member of Parliament for his constituent.

As he said, he realized that was not the thing for him to do. It came to his attention soon after when another constituent wrote, had noted the letter, and wanted to know if this was support for the application. He wrote back on September 30 and he tabled that letter in the House this morning. Hon. members opposite in their speeches often conveniently neglect to mention this. I tried to remind them in my remarks from my seat, but of course they do not pay much attention to that.

"This is further to your letter of September 20" and so on. He wrote: "My letter of March 15, 1994 to the CRTC simply asked that due consideration be given to the application. It is not intended to convey support for or opposition to the application". He sent a copy of this letter to the CRTC to reinforce the message that this was neither in opposition nor in support. It was a very decent letter and he did it in a timely way.

That is what the minister did. It is not as though he sent this after there had been an exposure of the facts in the press or in the House. He did the honourable thing as soon as he realized there was some mistake. He came into the House this morning and gave this explanation so all hon. members could hear.

As I said earlier, he did not send an advance copy to the Reform Party so maybe they did not understand it. He did not send it to them last night. Maybe they had trouble reading it. I do not know what happened with the Reform Party members. However I invite them to get the blues which are available to them and read the minister's statement. Then they will agree with me that this minister has acted with complete propriety. He apologized for sending the-

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am provoked to speak in the debate today because of the misrepresentations being placed before the House by the members in the Reform Party who are suggesting that somehow the Minister of Canadian Heritage has done something wrong and therefore ought to resign his post.

I want to argue against that proposition because it is palpable rubbish and nonsense. The minister came into the House this morning and made a very clear and succinct statement, as suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast in his

most reasoned address. It is the only beam of reason we have heard from the other side of the House on this issue this day.

The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast presented a veritable feast of reason in his address because he made it very clear that the minister should come and do what in fact the minister did earlier this morning.

He came into the House. He apologized. He said he was sorry that he made an error in sending a letter. This was not the case of a minister who had been exposed having done something improper.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

He did.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

Read the letters.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

I said "nonsense". Quote me correctly.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

Nonsense.

[Committees Of The House, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 44th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

If the House gives its consent I propose that we dispense with reading the 44th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which deals with changes in the membership on committees. If that is the case, I move that the 44th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)