Derek Lee

[Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words in support of MotionNo. 306 from the member for Mississauga South. The motion calls upon the government to participate in establishing a foundation which would be self-funded, not funded by government, in a way that would provide some compensation at the time of death of a peace officer or firefighter.

The concept is one whose time has come. Beyond all doubt, Canadians realize that we have a moral obligation to recognize the extremely valuable and sometimes very risky work done by police officers and firefighters on our behalf 24 hours a day. It is beyond debate. All parties have recognized that adequately in the House.

Some places in the country do have adequate compensation for widows and orphans, the survivors of the deceased, but some places do not. We have a spotty non-comprehensive system to provide this type of compensation.

The proposal would create a vehicle which would be the trustee of funds provided by gifts or legacies whereby compensation would be made. It does not require government management. The fund will be managed with its own resources by people selected by the foundation.

Is there a jurisdiction problem? Some members seem to think so, but I do not think so. I think jurisdiction is being used as a reason for further study. I do not think jurisdiction is a problem here any more than it was a problem when Parliament set up the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. In that case an arms length foundation was set up. We gave it $10 million of taxpayers' money and said: "Here. You are on your own. Go do your job. Here is what you do. Report to us annually. Do a good job for Canadians".

In this case there will not be a nickel of taxpayers' money. We are simply providing the vehicle. I do not quite understand how this could be a jurisdictional problem. Maybe someday we will see through the fog.

This particular initiative signals a need for leadership to put in place a vehicle which is necessary. It is a need which has been recognized by groups and organizations that represent our peace officers and firefighters. For those who choose to serve the public in the way that peace officers and firefighters do in accepting the risks that are there, we can do no less than to encourage and participate in the effort.

Although something concrete may not follow from this particular effort in the House this evening and the valuable contribution by the member for Mississauga South, I am hopeful that creative ways can be found, that the leadership can be found in and around this capital. I am sure there are ways to do this with or without the participation of the government.

I am fairly certain that no matter what happens, any initiative that evolves will have the support and encouragement of the government. I intend to work with those who will continue to look to find a way to make this happen.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is clear that the member who is speaking now is carrying with him a degree of frustration for whatever reason. He has alleged in this House within the last 60 seconds that what is happening in this House is a scam.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you to consider whether that may be unparliamentary. He has also used the word "bribe" and I ask you to consider whether that may be unparliamentary. He has also alleged that I as a member of my party did or said things in the last election campaign which I know not to be accurate. I know this is a point of debate but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call on the member to use parliamentary terms.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know where the hon. member is coming from and we all do. He has a role to play in opposition. He is critical of the government because it has not been able to help the opposition in its objectives.

There is no way in the world that this government is going to assist the official opposition in its number one goal of partitioning Canada. I am sorry, I regret that we cannot do that. I am not even sure we could do it legally if we wanted to. I hope he will forgive the government for that.

In terms of modernizing the federation, we have gone some distance. After the referendum last year, the government committed to three separate things and we have delivered or gone down the road to delivering on all three. I know the member opposite will agree that the government has done it. It may not accomplish his list. It may not get Canada dissolved. It may not partition Canada but it does deal with the issue of modernizing the federation.

This government is going to continue to work on that agenda using small bites. If the province of British Columbia has a problem with item X and the province of Quebec has a problem with item Y, the federal government is going to work on it. The federal government always has, provided the provinces communicate and the federal government communicates back. We have seen a lot of progress and I think we will see more.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear all the doom and gloom from the other side. Things are not nearly as bad as the hon. member makes them out to be.

His comment that low interest rates signal a collapsed economy is laughable. Perhaps the member would have visited Japan a couple of years ago and said: "My goodness, you only have a 6 per cent interest rate. Your economy must be collapsed". This is a joke. The member does not understand what a low interest rate means. But let us leave that and move on.

The member has suggested that the Liberals did not agree with the Bank of Canada monetary policy in the last decade. There were times when we did not, that is very true. The Bank of Canada policy in targeting an excessively low inflation rate in the range of 1 to 2 per cent, which it was, underbid what the economy was capable of doing. Consequently it caused a prolonged recession.

People are not going to be told that, but that is what happened. The policy chosen by the bank and adopted by the government prolonged and exacerbated the recession of 1991-92. Liberals would have done it another way, just like we found other ways to make cuts in government spending. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

The member thinks that because we thought we could have done a better job with the free trade agreement with the United States of America and with Mexico, that it is a reason for giving up on trading. Canada does not trade just with the United States or just with Mexico; we trade with the world. Our trade with the rest of the world is expanding.

It is simply inappropriate and silly for the member to focus on the free trade agreement as being the function, the common denominator of the current government policy to foster trade with the rest of the world. The free trade agreement simply does not apply to that type of trade. The World Trade Organization rules do and that is where we are putting our money.

The member suggested that it has been a long time since the throne speech, that we must not have very much going on now that is important if we have started discussing a speech that happened nine months ago. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me

that we have been so darn busy dealing with important legislation that we have not had the time or ability to get back to the throne speech, which was a very good throne speech.

Some day the hon. member and his party will thank the Prime Minister and his government for delivering us through, no matter how they count the deficit, to a stable economy.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate today on the subject of the government's throne speech some months ago. I can tell from the enthusiasm in the House today that it is still a topic of interest and that members are looking at lots of issues.

I would like to touch on four separate elements of the throne speech and the government's current program that arose from or were referred to in the throne speech.

The first area is that of economic opportunity and jobs. This has been a theme of governments for many years and it will probably always be so. The government had mapped out a game plan on being elected in 1993 and the economic opportunity program continued with this throne speech.

Everyone in the House will agree that the issue of jobs is a function of economics. Governments simply cannot go out with a bucket of money, pour it into a particular city or region and hope that jobs will accrue. That is not what happens. The creation of jobs is something that happens when the rubber hits the road, when the business person decides to hire, decides to invest in a new production facility and sells more product. Where all of those business functions are positive that is when jobs are created.

What is the government doing to foster the economic conditions that give rise to those jobs? There are several indicators. In fact there are hundreds of indicators. Of the most important ones I have selected four where the indicators are showing very positive economic progress, the kind that gives rise to job creation. They are not in any particular order.

Canada's current account, the balance of moneys moving in and out of the country, has entered positive territory for the first time in many years. That was tough to turn around. When the government was elected in 1993 there were many who thought the circumstance was desperate. I am very pleased to see that we now have current account surpluses in existence. In the most recent quarter and in future economic quarters and years we project a continuing current account surplus.

This of course has a very positive effect on the Canadian dollar which has moved recently over the 75 cent U.S. mark and which economists predict is going to continue to appreciate. While that sounds great, I know there are exporters in Canada who are not always comfortable as the dollar appreciates because that means their Canadian goods and services are more expensive for outside Canadian purchasers.

The second area is a prominent one. It is the battle to eliminate the deficit. I do not think there is anyone in the House who could deny the substantial progress that the government under the leadership of the finance minister has made toward the elimination of the deficit. We are now in 2 per cent of GDP territory. The objective for the following fiscal period is now targeted at 1 per cent of GDP.

In approximately the second quarter of 1998 the government will have zero cash borrowing requirements. We simply will not have any new borrowing needs for current operations. We will have to continue to recycle the government debt, but that is a very significant point. Perhaps I should not be projecting, but the economic models are showing no new borrowing in approximately the second quarter of 1998.

If we were in one of the other G7 countries, France, U.S.A., Germany and Great Britain, the government accounts are measured differently from the way we do it in Canada. If we measured our public accounts the way they measure theirs I could stand here and say we would have no deficit in the second quarter of 1998. However, we measure our government finances differently.

We cannot change it now because we will all get the sense that we are cooking the books and changing the rules. Therefore, we will keep our unique Canadian way and aim for the elimination of the deficit based on the Canadian measuring sticks. I think we are headed toward approximately 1999 or 2000. These issues are up to Canadians who spend money, Canadians who pay taxes and the finance minister who has his hands on the purse strings.

The last indicator of economic prosperity has to be interest rates. It was only yesterday that I noted that mortgage interest rates were publicly advertised now at 5.4 per cent. We have not seen interest rates like that since roughly the end of the last war.

I can recall in my previous incarnation, prior to being an elected member of the House, meeting people who had one of these old 30-year, CMHC mortgages with interest rates of around 5 per cent, 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Those mortgages would have been amortized and maturing approximately at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. I remember people saying: "We will never see those kinds of interest rates again, never. Those are part of history". Here we are in 1996 looking at those kinds of interest rates again.

The point I would make is that, as Canadians, we can be seen to actually be in control of interest rates. We are able to do things in government that directly affect interest rates. Maybe we never believed we could to that before but now we see that we can do it because we did it. I think we can take credit for all that we have done. It was not just a decision of the finance minister. It was not just a decision of a bank. It was a whole constellation of political decisions and acceptance by Canadians of a fiscal program that would enable these interest rates to reduce.

I want to leave economics now and go into the area of trust of government. I served in the 34th Parliament and I know that my first two weeks in this place the House had to deal with a matter involving trust. It was my first intervention in this place in 1989. I think it is fair to say that in the last two, three or four years there has been a lot fewer incidents where material issues of public trust have been taken up in this House. I do not want to suggest that there are never any. There are always some.

However, in terms of material issues of public trust, I am very confident that the Prime Minister has shown us a standard which we can comfortably follow, hopefully for many years. I know I am proud to follow that standard and I think Canadians believe that.

I think public polls, where various types of questions are asked, indicate that Canadians are beginning to have a sense of trust in government, not in the sense that government can do everything, it never could and just cannot, but in their sense of confidence in the integrity at least of this Prime Minister and this government's high standards. I know, the cabinet knows and I think members opposite know what those standards are. I think we are doing a much better job of meeting those standards.

One way which we show that we are meeting the standards falls under the rubric of accountability. Journalists write about, politicians speak about, Canadians ask about it. This government has made a very real attempt to be directly accountable. It is a very big manifestation.

When I sought election to the House as a Liberal member I ran on the policies in the red book. I used it in my campaign and in much of what I do and what I vote on here and sometimes what I speak about. The Prime Minister and the cabinet are following what is in the red book and proof of that was the decision of the Prime Minister a couple of week ago to publish what he and his cabinet and the government have accomplished in delivering on the red book promises.

Some people viewed that as political grandstanding. To be sure, it was political. However, it was an attempt to account to Canadians for what the government had accomplished vis-a-vis the red book. Individuals may disagree with the score card and may say we have done 8 out of the 10 things but there are still two remaining. That is fair. This was intended to say that by our account we have fulfilled 78 per cent of the commitments of the red book and we still have approximately another year left in our mandate. Every week, every month there are announcements and decisions by the government which continue to improve the record of accountability. I am proud of that.

I realize that at some time I will have to account to my electors in Scarborough-Rouge River for only scoring 86 per cent of 87 per cent. In this modern complex world I challenge any institution, any government or corporation, whether it be a hospital, a school or a commercial entity, to deliver 100 per cent on anything as the years unfold. Do not forget, we are dealing with government which is very complex and very broad. I am very comfortable with the process of accounting.

Another little element of this, one little snapshot of where I believe the Prime Minister and the government have shown they are more accountable is in the innovation of the government's decision to put in place a commissioner to oversee the activities of the Communications Security Establishment, a signals intelligence agency with a high degree of capability of eavesdropping. This agencies has carried on since the second world war with out any

legislative mandate and without any accountability mechanism, as far as I have been able to determine. There certainly was a minister in the House, but rarely if ever were there any question put in the House on this subject. Even more rarely were answers given.

Now a former judge has been appointed, and the accountability mechanism there to assist Parliament, sharing accountability, was an innovation which was not there before. I am very proud to be part of a government that was bold enough to address that issue.

Third, what has happened in the region I represent in terms of the throne speech? What has the government delivered? What has the throne speech done? My riding of Scarborough-Rouge River is part of the greater Toronto area. It is difficult to look at a particular riding in that area in isolation.

However, I know that the financial community on Bay Street likes what this government has done, what it has delivered. I know that for the second year in a row, Canada's exports are hitting record highs. Never before have we exported as much as we have recently, which means jobs for Canadians.

Never before have I as a Canadian felt so plugged into the world. From my riding and from the GTA I see goods and services being exported from Canada to all parts of the world. Now there is no part of the world in which Canadians are not marketing, selling, building, advising. It is really a treat to see this happening. We have a lot of Canadians with a lot of abilities who are working in that area.

Rouge Valley Park is a unique 5,000 acre green preserve within metropolitan Toronto. The federal government has done its part. It has delivered on its funding commitment. We are very proud that the Rouge Valley Park alliance is moving ahead with the co-operation of all the other levels of government, provincial, municipal, metro and the regional conservation authority, to accomplish its objectives.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the GTA caucus are dedicated to taking a piece of the Downsview air base and turning it into green space and other positive infrastructure for the GTA.

The commercialization of the Toronto airport is now proceeding. The carpet has been ripped up; the doors at the entrance to terminal II, which never worked, have finally been replaced; a new tower is being constructed; a new runway is being constructed; the other runways have been repaired. Millions of dollars in investment are going into the Pearson airport which is a huge economic entity. It is the gateway to central Canada and for many people around the world it is the gateway to Canada.

One of the things visitors to Toronto will see is the new trade centre which is being constructed on the Canadian National Exhibition grounds. The centre is a product of the federal-provincial infrastructure program, a federal program contained in the red book. This huge attractive trade centre will be open shortly. Canadians will market our goods and services to the entire world through this trade centre. We will compete with trade centres globally. There are some great centres out there, just as the GTA trade centre will be.

I cannot talk about the throne speech without mentioning national unity. The government has a program which has been debated in the House. We want to modernize the federation in little bites because we have found the big bite is too much for Canadians, too much for this House. We have not been able to do it in big chunks. We are working on that in many areas, co-operation federally and provincially, avoiding duplication, job training, environmental protection, a national securities commission, which I think is an excellent objective, and dealing with partitionists in Quebec who would partition Canada. Some are called separatists, some are called secessionists.

This is a matter that has to be addressed and will continue to be addressed maybe for another 100 years. However, I believe that Canadians and Quebecers are going to be able to deal with this issue, as tough as it is. We have to give a lot of elbow room to all the provinces, including Quebec, so that each of the groupings across the country can achieve their goals as a region or as a province. I am confident that this government, under this Prime Minister, will be able to accomplish this objective and all others.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. member's remarks, I do not think I heard once any attempt by him to address the number one issue of competence for any of the individuals in his long list of appointments. I will leave one on the floor for his consideration. If he is prepared to say that His Excellency the Governor General is not qualified or competent, I dare him to put that to us today. I do not think he is prepared to say that.

I am going to suggest three reasons that the hon. member should support this legislation.

First, the legislation in partnership with another bill before the House will eliminate 88 organizations which were in existence before the last election. That involves 868 positions; 868 appointments are gone. It entails a savings of approximately $10 million per year. That is a change and I hope the member will acknowledge it.

Second, he said that there is not a credible mechanism to review the appointments. I am sure he is aware that there has been put in place an advisory committee for all federal judicial appointments which is operating well. There has also been put in place an advisory committee for Immigration and Refugee Board appointments which is operating well.

Just by way of an anecdote, within the last month a Liberal said to me: "I just got a letter from the advisory committee that said I was not qualified to serve on the IRB. How can this be?" I said: "Just because you are a Liberal does not mean you are competent to serve on the board". That person was disappointed. That is what the advisory committee is doing. It is telling people of all backgrounds if it believes they are not capable of doing the job and those people are not recommended to the minister.

Those are two examples, the federal judiciary and the IRB, where there are non-political people making recommendations for appointments.

Third, with respect to reviewing appointments, having served on the justice committee, I know that every judicial appointment stands referred to that committee. If that is not an accountability mechanism for judicial appointments I do not know what would be.

I also know that every appointment in every area of the federal government's jurisdiction can be taken up under the standing orders by any of the standing committees dealing with those departments. All that is necessary is for the members of the committee to decide at some point in time to review the appointment.

I have sat on committees when that particular agenda item has been considered. I have seen it happen with respect to the Correctional Service of Canada. I have seen it happen with respect to the National Parole Board and in numerous other areas, including the referral of judicial appointments, which because of a standing order are not agenda items for the committee, but the resumes of every judicial appointment are referred to the standing committee.

I hope the member will accept that there are mechanisms in place. Maybe they are not comprehensive, but mechanisms have been put in place. Changes have been made since the last election and 88 separate organizations have been liquidated. The volume of appointments has decreased by 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent under program review. There is a provision to ensure competence, not comprehensively across the board but we are making great headway in that regard. I hope he will acknowledge at least some of what I have put to him now.

[House Of Commons, October 29th, 1996]

moved:

That this House unequivocally reconfirms the undoubted rights and privileges of the House of Commons, won from the Crown and which became part of the law many centuries ago, and in particular the unfettered right of the House and its committees to at all times compel the attendance of persons and require them to answer questions and to compel the production of such papers and documents as the House or committee considers necessary for the due carrying out of its mandate.

Mr. Speaker, if this motion were to be voted on today it would cause this House of Commons for the first time in its 129-year existence to publicly articulate, declare and confirm its absolute right on behalf of all citizens to send for persons, papers and records.

The authority to require the attendance of persons, to have the persons answer questions and produce documents, as well as the right to institute inquiries, are essential elements of our parliamentary process. They are part of the law of Canada. They are founded in the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act. Each of Beauchesne, Bourinot, Erskine May, Maingot and the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993 has recognized this historic and longstanding body of parliamentary privilege.

Unfortunately these powers are not commonly understood by or in some cases respected by parliamentarians, the executive branch and the public. That is why I have moved this motion on what I consider to be a very important matter for Parliament.

Let me draw to the attention of the House some of the problems that have been encountered in this area, that have arisen in the past and that continue to recur today.

In 1991 the then solicitor general and Correction Services Canada refused to provide to a committee of the House the complete, unexpurgated reports of inquiries into escapes from correctional institutions of an individual by the name of Leger and another individual by the name of Gingras. Each of those individuals had escaped and had killed innocent Canadians.

Inquiries were held and the House of Commons committee on justice at that time was undertaking a review. As I said, the solicitor general and Correction Services Canada refused to turn over the unexpurgated versions of those two reports.

In the end it took approximately 12 months to receive the reports. We had a number of lawyers, a number of parties, committee hearings, privilege moved in this House and ultimately the unexpurgated reports were provided under the basis of a House order which was consensually agreed to. That process which took 12 months is not sufficient. Everyone in the House knows it. That is one example of why the House should adopt this motion at this time.

I am also personally aware of confusion and sometimes ignorance at the Department of Justice where lawyers continue to advise their clients as lawyers to the clients, but we must forgive them in some cases. They are in fact advising their clients. They are not advising the House of Commons. They are not advising parliamentarians, they are simply telling their clients the limits of their legal rights. In some cases this manifests confusion and, I regret to say, ignorance of the law of Parliament.

Clearly this is not acceptable to parliamentarians. I am sure there are many other examples being experienced by parliamentarians in committee from time to time. I know there are some instances extant right now.

Why this motion now? The Canadian House of Commons has never formally articulated this element of parliamentary privilege. It is noteworthy, however, that other parliaments have done this, especially when confusion has arisen. For example, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom reconfirmed its power over witnesses in 1947 and the Senate of Australia did the same thing in 1975.

The way to reconfirm and re-assert the authority of the House of Commons and clear up the confusion is by the adoption of a resolution such as this. In my remarks I want to discuss a bit more of the background to this motion, the purpose of privilege and the enforcement remedies available to the House. Finally I will comment on some practical implications.

Why do we have this particular authority or power to call for persons, papers and documents? The power to send for a person's papers and records is central to the ability of the House and its committees to discharge their responsibilities. This was confirmed in the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections in February 1991 dealing with the Gingras and Leger matters to which I referred earlier.

There is a phrase of which members may be aware where the House has been described as the grand inquest of the nation. Historically, the House of Commons has been considered to be a grand inquest in the United Kingdom and also in Canada.

Lord Coke first described the House of Commons in this way in the 17th century, and courts have continued to use that phrase ever since. The House of Commons and the other place act as a kind of a check on the executive branch and I will talk a little more about that later.

What is the legal basis of this particular privilege? First, section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which I will not read because it is there for reference. Second, it has been restated in sections 4 and 5 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Of course, a recapitulation of all of that is in Standing Order 108(1)(a) of the House. It states, and I will paraphrase: "Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House and to send for persons, papers and records". In effect, that is a comprehensive delegation by the House to its committees of that power to call for persons, papers and records.

The courts have commented on this and I just want to note that for the record. The Supreme Court has stated its opinion on several occasions. It has described these privileges as fundamental. It has stated: "It is clear that the privileges inherent in legislative bodies are fundamental to our system of government". This was in the case of New Brunswick Broadcasting Company v. Nova Scotia.

Second, the court has commented that these privileges are necessary. It has said that parliamentary privilege and the breadth of individual privileges encompassed by that term are accorded to members of the Houses of Parliament and the legislative assemblies because they are judged necessary to the discharge of their legislative function.

Third, these privileges are a part of our Constitution. They are part of the fundamental law of our land.

By this brief review of the statutory basis of parliamentary privilege, it will be noted that it is within the scope of the House or its committees to inquire into any matter within Parliament's authority to enact legislation.

What are the documents that must be produced? What are the questions that must be answered?

For the reasons I have just discussed, Parliament and its committees have a very broad range of powers. No person may ignore the order to appear, nor decline to answer a question, nor refuse to produce a document. To do so is a contempt of the House for which the House may exercise its lawful power to enforce sanctions which include the power of detention.

Here are some of the authorities I want to cite for the record: "A committee is not restricted in the scope of questions it can pose and a witness must answer all questions put to him". That is from Maingot, page 163.

"Committees may send for any papers that are relevant to their orders of reference. Within this restriction, it appears that the power of the committee to send for papers is unlimited. Witnesses must answer all questions directed to them even over their objection that an answer would incriminate them". That is from Beauchesne, page 239, citation 862.

Canadians may be asking what protection is afforded to a witness who provides such evidence or documents. Even if a claim were made that a witness violated a statute's provisions by providing information or documents to the House or a committee, that witness would automatically be clothed with the protection or immunity of the House and cannot be prosecuted.

This immunity is described in Beauchesne as follows: "Every witness attending before the House or any committee thereof may claim the protection of the House in respect of the evidence to be given". That is page 237, citation 853.

"Nothing said before a committee, or at the Bar of the House, may be used in a court of law. Thus a witness may not refuse to

answer on the grounds of self-incrimination". That is Beauchesne, pages 27-28, citation 109.

Finally, article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688, which the Supreme Court of Canada noted in the 1991 Patriation Reference and which is part of the public and general law of Canada, states: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament". Forgive me for going back 400 years to find that one.

The enforcement mechanisms that are available to the House are available to the House and not to committees. These are the procedure to be used where a witness refuses to appear as set out in Beauchesne, among other volumes: "If a witness should refuse to appear on receiving the order of the Chairman, or if a witness refuses to answer questions, this conduct may be reported to the House and an order immediately made for the attendance of the person at the Bar or before the committee.

"On further refusing to obey, the witness may be ordered to be sent for and brought to the Bar in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or may be declared guilty of a contempt and ordered to be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms". That citation is from Beauchesne, page 238-239.

In my research, I went back another couple of hundred years to the year 1704 and found the case of an unfortunate Mr. Lee of Clement Inn who I am sure was not an ancestor of mine. He might have been. In any event, Mr. Lee had failed to respond to an order of a committee of Parliament. The resolution of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom which was adopted found him guilty of contempt and required that he be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Even a former Canadian Prime Minister has been held in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. That was in 1873. Sir John A. Macdonald failed to attend a committee meeting of which he was a member and was ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The former Prime Minister was not discharged until after the reading of his doctor's affidavit indicating his ill health that existed at the time.

In 1913, not that long ago, Mr. R. C. Miller refused to answer questions before the public accounts committee. The matter was reported to the House. He was summoned to the bar but he persisted in his refusal to answer. The House committed him to the Carleton County jail until prorogation or until the House otherwise decided. That citation is at page 30 of Beauchesne's.

Occasionally the matter of crown privilege arises. It is not truly a privilege but a claim that is put to the House of Commons and Parliament on behalf of the crown that usually involves a matter of state. Rather than being an absolute exception to the rule, the matter is taken under advisement by the committee or the House and is disposed of on a common sense basis. I put it that way so as not to derogate unnecessarily at this time from the main principle found in my motion.

I would like to recap for a moment. I have discussed the legal basis for the privilege. I have talked about why the privilege applies, the remedies and the enforcement. Why is this motion important to us? I have thought this through carefully and I think there are three or four reasons.

First, it deals with the public perception of the role and the authority of the House of Parliament and the other place. In my experience the production of documents is the single greatest obstacle I have ever encountered as an MP during my work at committee. The existence of this circumstance is eroding the public's confidence in Parliament. Parliamentarians are more than just a debating club and a cheering section for the government. If parliamentarians cannot get the information our committees are out of business; we cannot do our job.

My second point is fairly simple. If we do not establish the principle all other questions regarding exceptions, privileges and privacy are all moot. We will never be able to deal with the exceptions until we have the principle.

Third, I reiterate how other houses in the Commonwealth have dealt with the matter. Perhaps I will avoid too much detail recognizing that the clock is running faster than I am flipping pages of my speech.

On August 13, 1947 the House of Commons in the United Kingdom reconfirmed its authority to require the attendance of witnesses by resolving:

That the refusal of a witness before a select committee to answer any question which may be put to him is a contempt of this House, and an infraction of the undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the public interest.

The attorney general of the United Kingdom at that time said:

We are now putting the matter beyond all possibility of doubt by this motion.

The mover of the motion, Mr. Morrison, said:

The point is not one on which any doubt can be allowed to continue. It should be cleared up and the motion is to make the position entirely clear for the future as regards any committee of the House.

The Senate of Australia passed a similar resolution in 1984.

My final point is that we can clear up doubt on this matter once and for all by confirming this privilege with a motion. We must act in such a way as to fortify and buttress the powers of Parliament, the rights of Parliament and the privileges of Parliament as they exist now and as they have always existed. This resolution does not create new law. It simply confirms what is there. The House has not passed a resolution of this type in its entire 129-year existence.

There is some ignorance, denial and confusion out there with which we must deal.

It is an embarrassment to me as a parliamentarian that for 129 years we have muddled along without articulating it. We simply assumed that all the authorities and authors who have written for us would do the job. It is not their job; it is our job. It is our duty as parliamentarians to deal with the issue in this way and the time has come to deal with it.

The House will confirm the principle. It will be there for all parliamentarians, all writers, all the Beauchesnes who write about Parliament and study our rules.

I hope the debate will not fall on deaf ears. I would like to think this motion could be passed but of course it is in the hands of members. I thank members for giving the matter their consideration.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the member's remarks that his party supports the continuing use of MMT as a gasoline additive? We now understand that this additive contributes to the build up of ozone levels and smog in urban areas. It is suspected but not proven to be a health hazard. It very clearly harms the diagnostic systems of currently built motor vehicles in North America and indirectly contributes to increasing smog if those diagnostic systems are not maintained properly.

Second, he suggested that the replacement additive ethanol was a health hazard. I believe he said that. If he means it I hope he will be in a position to explain why his party believes that ethanol, which is proposed here in Canada to be a replacement additive for MMT, is a health hazard or not a good replacement for MMT.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member leads off debate on this important issue today and he suggests that we have a scandal. The auditor general has reviewed the issue. The Standing Committee on Finance has reviewed the issue. The hon. member has spent 20 minutes or so introducing us to the issue in the House. He suggests that it is a scandal but all that he has done has asked questions.

It is a little too late in his remarks to do it but perhaps a subsequent member will address this. However, I wish that someone would please outline what element of the issue constitutes a scandal. I put this to him and I ask for his reaction.

The advance ruling procedure that was used does not create any new law or any new rights. It is simply a decision by the department on what the tax law was at the time.

If this particular trust had simply changed its domicile without seeking an advance ruling, I put it to him: Would not the department have come to the same conclusion in doing an assessment or making the decision not to do an assessment after the change in

domicile had taken place? It would have come to the same conclusion that the tax law permitted the change in domicile without the deemed dispositions that would otherwise have taken place.

Where is the scandal? If there is a problem it may be in the existing tax law. Unless the member can point to a problem, I suggest to him that an advance ruling would have had the same effect as an assessment would have had after the change in domicile of this trust had taken place.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member has occasion to remind me of some work that I and other members of the House participated in on the justice committee in the previous Parliament, including the member for Moncton who is here this afternoon with us.

I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member that following that report and in the drafting of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act legislation which followed, the matter of public safety and safety of the community was inserted. If I am not mistaken in the first draft of the act perhaps it was left out. I am trying to remember and I think it may have been. This was five or so years ago.

I believe the work at the committee stage resulted in the insertion of that principle. If am not mistaken in this Parliament a CCRA amendment was going forward, or perhaps it was the sentencing act, and the issue of public safety was listed at about number five on the list of criteria. For cosmetic purposes we were successful in moving that up the list to number one or number two. In any event, the member has made a good point. If the issue of safety to the community, public safety, is missing from this bill and it is not already present in the statute it amends, then perhaps this House through the committee which will study the bill should consider inserting it as a principle. She may wish to respond.