Mr. Speaker, I was listening earlier to the NDP movers of the motion and now to the Reform. What is interesting to observe is that they had focused in their argumentation to a large extent on the very crucial issue before the commission itself, allegations I submit in respect of the commission that they had alleged on the floor of the House of Commons. Those are the very allegations that the commission will determine in its wisdom, whether they are based on solid ground and therefore relevant to the discussion of funding.
The public commission is almost like the Winnipeg police commission, almost like the unemployment insurance commission, almost like the CPP tribunal, the veterans appeal board, the workmen compensation board or the labour board in a province. They are quasi-judicial tribunals. When citizens with grievances against the bureaucracy of government come before these tribunals, I have not heard from the NDP in the House, from the Reform Party in the House, from the Tory party in the House or from the Bloc in the House whether those citizens with grievances have a right to legal representation.
I have appeared before these tribunals. The one distinction that we must make is that quasi-judicial tribunals, as the RCMP public complaints commission is, were created by parliament precisely to avoid the need for the formality of a knowledge of the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure. In other words, citizens without full legal knowledge can appear before them and could even have representations of laymen. Therefore I ask where is the precedent being created?