Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize that. I was making an attempt to be clear in my definition of which House leader I was referring to and I understand the ruling as such.
The then House leader of the opposition party is now the House leader of the Liberal Party which is in government. Referencing the GST advertisement of the day he said that in effect there would be a new tax on January 1, 1991. The advertisement was intended to convey the idea that Parliament had acted on it because that was the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this one was finally adopted and put into effect. That being the case, it was
clearly a contempt of Parliament because it amounted to a misrepresentation of the role of the House.
Speaker Fraser of the day said the following with regard to those comments and the advertisement:
This advertisement may not be a contempt of this House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is in my opinion ill-conceived and it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery of modern and responsible members on both sides of the House. That ad is objectionable and should never be repeated.
That was said clearly to members who are now sitting in the House and were present for Speaker Fraser's comments at that time.
It has happened again. It is unacceptable. It has been a violation of privilege and I recommend, Mr. Speaker, that you rule accordingly.