Peter MacKay

[Privilege, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place.

I gave you notice of this matter of privilege, and each party House leader, with respect to a news release yesterday by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I have sent Mr. Speaker a copy of this but it is short enough that I would like to read it. It is dated December 2:

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services today announced the creation of the Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council to provide advice on the Parliament Hill renovations.

“The Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council will provide an important support mechanism to the renovation projects of Parliament Hill”, said [the minister]. “The Advisory Council will aim to make a valued contribution to improving the level of information, consultation and co-operation on preserving these important heritage assets”.

The Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council will be comprised of membership from the private and public sectors, including: representatives of the Senate; House of Commons; the Library of Parliament; the National Capital Commission; Canada Heritage; as well as representatives of the private sector architectural and engineering professional associations.

The Advisory Council will be an independent advisory board that will advise the Minister of PWGSC, as the authority accountable for the Parliament Hill renovations.

These texts are also available in French.

I have been disturbed for some time by the cabinet's attitude toward parliament. Ministers seem to take great pride in avoiding interaction with this House. A dangerous culture grew in the last parliament in which cabinet ignored this House and its members. I can count on one hand the number of ministerial statements that have been made since this parliament reconvened. Those statements have been most often and appropriately prompted by expressions of public sympathy for disasters, yet they have not been announcements by government on policy or matters that should be brought to the attention of this House in the first instance. The House of Commons is the place where the government is most answerable to the people who elected the members of this Chamber.

A culture of spin doctoring and media manipulation appears to have grown. To date this House has been prepared to ignore it and to remain silent, while our right to be informed of government action and policy decisions has been superseded by default by government to the news releases. It appears there is no one in this place, nor in government who asks whether this is an announcement that should be made by the minister to parliament. It is time for the House to draw a line in this regard. I think that everyone in this place would agree.

Mr. Speaker, two days ago, in response to pleas from the opposition House leader, you admonished the fact that there were alleged leaks. You quite properly appealed to members at that time to respect this House. You said: “The best place for announcements is here in this House, where we are. This is where they should be made”.

This situation is very much akin to the situation you were dealing with at that time. It is very similar. This is a ministerial announcement. The place for this to have been made is here in this Chamber. I would suggest there is not a member here who would disagree with that. The minister of public works is dealing with a very important situation at this time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended two meetings at which you and other House officers were present. We met at the Board of Internal Economy. We met with respect to a situation that had arisen in the Chamber coming out of question period. I would wager that you as Speaker were not aware that this ministerial statement was taking place.

As members of this place we are entitled in the first instance to hear in this Chamber of such important matters. Are we not members of this place? Do we not deserve that respect? I am certain that if other members had been aware of this announcement there may have been reference to it. There may have been reference to it at the informal meeting we held in your office, yet there was none. Obviously the government was aware while opposition members were not aware.

The simple fact is that the minister of public works has attempted to avoid the House of Commons on this issue. There is good reason for that. It is becoming plainly obvious to everyone that there are serious problems with this project and the budget that has been attached to it.

The minister may try to play tough guy with the public servants, but we are watching him. This is an abrogation of ministerial responsibility. The minister obviously does not want to listen to the responses of the opposition parties and it is well known that he brooks no opposition. Just ask the public servants who were hung out to dry by the minister before the examination by the auditor general.

As members of parliament we have an obligation to discharge and the place to do that is here in the House. We cannot effectively do so if the ministry is systematically avoiding coming into this House to enter into parliamentary dialogue and exchange.

We have been patient with the government and we have tried to make this place work, although there have been times when it has stumbled.

The public works minister seems to think this place is a museum. He calls this place a heritage asset. But we are here as an asset ourselves to parliament. Although I am not one content to sit on the shelf while the minister of public works runs roughshod over the House of Commons, I suggest that this is an insult and that he owes it to this place to consult and he owes it to this House to make announcements in this place if it is to truly be respected.

The particular museum piece is through with passive acceptance of the norms of the last parliament. We are signalling that this is unacceptable and we invite other members to participate in this question of privilege and to join in this fight to assert that the authority of this House is to be respected, not only by the opposition but by government members as well. Ministers have a duty to this place and to those who use this building.

Canada is not alone in suffering the attack of the spin doctors. Your colleague in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Speaker Betty Boothroyd, has repeatedly stated: “When there is a major change of policy, a statement should first be made in the House”.

Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of citation 352 of Beauchesne's and I am not arguing that there has been a breach of privilege per se, but I do argue that there is contempt of the House. I would ask you to reserve your decision on this point in order that you may consider the consequences of allowing this conduct to continue and to continue unchallenged by the Chair and by the opposition.

Have we reached the day when this House is so weak willed that we will allow this to occur? Surely that cannot be the case. The time has come for parliamentary assertion of respect, not only for the physical premises, not only for these buildings that the minister of public works seeks to remedy and to fix, but respect for the members and all of the rights and privileges that flow from this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, there is a remedy that goes beyond a simple admonition from the Chair and I ask you to find that there is a prima facie circumstance to permit consideration by the House of a motion instructing the minister of public works to make a statement in the House, fully outlining the government's intention with respect to the restoration of the parliamentary precinct.

Mr. Speaker, this is a request that a statement be made in the House and that perhaps the Speaker also consider issuing an admonition and that the minister apologize. If you are prepared to permit this motion, I would move that that take place and that we refer the matter to a committee, if that is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come and I believe, in respect to you, that you took a step in that direction yesterday by bringing the House leaders together and looking for solutions that will improve the way this Chamber works. I am appealing to you on this matter. This is not the first time this has happened. In fact it has become the norm in parliament that ministerial statements are made at the press gallery and not on the floor of the House of Commons.

I am a new member of this Chamber, but in the short time that I have been here I have seen this trend continue and I find it absolutely insulting, not only to members of the House but to the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your consideration of this point.

[Points Of Order, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to add to the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona. He is absolutely right when he says that those who are perhaps the most active in this raucous behaviour that is delaying question period are the direct beneficiaries of that behaviour and that the people who pay the price are those in the smaller parties.

Let us have something else on the record. The loss of two or four questions from the two smallest parties in this House is significant in terms of our overall presentation and our ability to participate in a fair way in the question period process.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to your sense of fairness and even-handedness that you do intervene and that you move quickly. There should be some consequence for the type of behaviour we have seen displayed.

There are certain members who continuously and repeatedly ask questions that cause this place to deteriorate into an uproar and there seems to be little consequence for that behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you and ask you to use your discretion in the Chair to move quickly. As has been stated previously by the hon. member from the NDP, there has to be some sense of fairness and justice if question period is to work.

I certainly do not have the experience of the previous member, but in the short time I have been here, in the past number of months, I have seen the deterioration. Perhaps today was an aberration, but I believe that there has been deterioration. There has to be some intervention on the part of the Chair if this behaviour is to stop.

[Firearms Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the regulations under the Liberal government's ill-conceived Firearms Act will begin to take effect in this country.

Despite the lack of evidence that this government's law will reduce crime-related activity, despite the spiralling costs to establish a new bureaucracy and despite the Supreme Court of Canada challenge by four provinces and two territories, the Liberal government proceeds at full throttle. Even worse, the Liberals have insidiously spent taxpayers' dollars to surreptitiously promote the Firearms Act as a crime reduction measure when it should be better labelled “the false hope act”.

The opportunity exists for the government to step back from this costly boondoggle. As well intentioned as the legislation might be, the focus should be on real crime prevention and crime fighting initiatives, focusing on the root causes of crime, improving Canadian police investigative computer systems, implementing a DNA data bank registry and allocating more resources to front line policing. Let us put the priorities straight and stop this costly measure now.

[Extradition Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate.

It is always a pleasure to participate in debates in this place, particularly with respect to such an important piece of legislation as Bill C-40.

This bill, as previously mentioned, will amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It will also amend and repeal other acts as a consequence.

Again, I would like to highlight that it is my pleasure to participate in a debate on such a substantive piece of legislation sponsored by a government that has a well-earned reputation for a light legislative agenda. Moreover, the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general, both former and current, are well known for their great delay in responding to the call of Canadians to bring much needed law and order legislation.

In more simple and less partisan tones, this legislation will essentially merge a 100 year old Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act into the new and modernized Extradition Act. I share the belief of the parliamentary secretary that the objectives of this bill are certainly positive, beneficial and laudable.

Several events justify the revision and the update of the Extradition Act. Expediency is an important aspect of this legislation, as previously mentioned by my colleague in the New Democratic Party, just as there is a need, I would suggest, for speeding the immigration process, which is also an area of vital concern to this country.

Not only is the current legislation over 100 years old, it does not deal with modern criminality like telemarketing fraud and the use of the Internet to commit offences outside of our jurisdiction. Sadly, criminal activity is keeping pace, if not surpassing, the rate of change in society and technocrime is all too present in our modern world.

The present act is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from the globalization of criminal activity such as the drug trade, organized crime and transborder crimes. As previously mentioned by other speakers, organized crime has reached a crisis level in this country. According to our own police and security officers there is a drastic need to intervene.

The Liberal government currently has the impression that Canada, particularly its ports, is open for business. There is an obvious need for legislation to stem the tide of crime.

The Extradition Act was last amended in 1991 by the former Progressive Conservative government. Bill C-31 considerably reduced delays in extradition cases. At that time groups within the law enforcement and security intelligence communities were already requesting a complete overhaul.

The former PC government also passed legislation known as the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, a bill which this House also seeks to amend under the legislation.

Our former government in its legislation, nonetheless, enabled Canada to co-operate more effectively with other countries in the investigation and prosecution of transnational and international crimes, such as acts of terrorism, drug smuggling and money laundering.

Sadly, the U.S. state department's most recent annual international report, the international narcotics control strategy report, listed Canada as currently being one of the more attractive locations to launder illegal cash. Under the Liberals our country falls into the same category as Brazil and the Cayman Islands when it comes to international crime.

There is certainly a need to talk less about fighting international crime or organized crime and a need for more action, something which I hope the new solicitor general will address in his annual ministerial statement on organized crime later this week. I know that all of us in opposition are anxiously awaiting that moment.

As previously mentioned, Bill C-40 proposes to merge the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act. The new act would allow Canada to meet its international obligations since it would allow extradition to international criminal courts and tribunals, including war crime tribunals. It is apparent of late that traditional impressions of war crimes have expanded and changed and there is a need for a strong international response.

A person would be extradited under this act if the act was committed outside of Canada, but it would also be considered a crime within Canada, commonly known as double criminality. There are some constitutional experts and lawyers who view this as potentially problematic in this country when it comes to judicial interpretation.

There are requirements for some interpretation of evidence to become more flexible. This would also bring Canadian extradition procedures and practices more in line with other countries. Granted, there must always be safeguards when it comes to the consideration of certain types of evidence, particularly hearsay evidence that is not certified or in some way sworn testimony.

The government, however, hopes that the new legislation will prevent fugitives from considering Canada as a safe haven to avoid facing the judicial system of their own country or the country of origin, where the crime was committed.

The new act also retains the Progressive Conservative amendments of Bill C-31 which were there to maintain the efficient extradition process.

Canadians have continually expressed concerns about Canada's extradition laws. They want to prevent this country from becoming a safe haven that would harbour criminals, criminals who arrive to avoid prosecution within their own countries.

Over the past number of years several high profile cases, such as the Ng, Kindler, Maersk Dubai and Narita Airport bombing cases, have become well known within the country and as well have highlighted and caused Canadians and our extradition partners on the international level to express concerns. These cases have also demonstrated the need to reform and modernize our extradition laws.

I was pleased to add my name to many who objected this summer to the scheduled deportation of former Maersk Dubai crew members in the province of Nova Scotia. New Brunswick Conservative Senator Erminie Cohen played a key role in soliciting support for these brave men and for that we should all thank and praise her.

Perhaps members who continually denigrate the upper chamber should take a page out of Senator Cohen's book and look beyond partisanship. She is one of many senators who work hard to raise issues which are sometimes given short shrift in the House of Commons.

One of the major concerns with the legislation is that Canada requires the countries requesting the extradition of a fugitive to submit their request according to a fairly narrow approach to what is acceptable evidence.

The rules of evidence are relaxed and hearsay evidence is relied upon heavily. Documents from foreign jurisdictions can be received for consideration at an extradition hearing. There is concern with respect to the certification of these documents and their acceptance carte blanche without the ability to cross-examine the subjects of the affidavits or documents.

Safeguards, however, would exist. There would be a great deal of discretion and emphasis placed on the minister to determine whether these documents are acceptable.

However, this creates some difficulty, especially for countries working within a civil law system where they rely on facts and accept a wider variety of forms of evidence which are permissible before the courts. There is a real potential for harm here and reprisals for wrongful convictions know no boundaries.

Other concerns include the difficulty for Canada to meet its international obligations with respect to international criminal courts or tribunals, as Canada cannot extradite a fugitive to such a body under the present regime. Over 100 years ago when extradition legislation was first adopted in Canada, many forms of telecommunications and other forms of communication did not exist, nor did airplanes, nor did the modern forms of transportation.

The current legislation is silent on newer crimes such as telemarketing fraud, theft of information by computer, the use of the Internet to commit an offence in another jurisdiction, and is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from the globalization of criminal activities. The increased levels of drug trading, organized crime and transborder crimes obviously come quickly to mind. However, this new legislation does move in that direction.

The increased mobility of individuals is a reality that did not exist but has to be kept in mind when anyone is drafting new legislation. It also highlights the need for effective extradition relations with our international partners. That has become crucial. The world is a smaller place, yet criminals have greater ability to access places where they can hide to escape justice. Following a comprehensive review and consultations with our many partners, we know that the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act require major changes to reflect today's procedures and practices.

The bill tabled by the Liberal government will provide a single act that will simplify the extradition process in this country. It will also simplify the process for our partners who wish to extradite a fugitive from Canada back to their country and, reciprocally, for Canada to bring fugitives back to our country. At the same time the bill will provide enhanced protection and safeguards for persons who are the subject of extradition requests, in essence raising the standard of protection.

The proposed legislation would make our extradition process more accessible to foreign states by bringing the extradition processes and practices closer to those of other countries. More important, it would prevent Canadians from being the subject of unfair requests for extradition.

One aspect of the legislation where there is neglect, and it is a common theme for this government, is the issue of funding. We have often seen in this term and in the previous one that the government has passed legislation without any comprehension of the costs that would be associated. The Liberal government has repeatedly talked tough on the issue of organized crime, yet we know from the auditor general's report that it slashed $74 million from the RCMP's organized crime unit in the last fiscal year. It is an apparent contradiction. The words do not appear to be followed by the act.

The Liberal government can no longer deny that the implementation costs of Bill C-68 are skyrocketing. Some estimate that by the time this cumbersome legislation is operating the cost will be in the range of $350 million. Some estimates have gone as high as $500 million.

We are discussing a very important piece of legislation, sponsored by the Minister of Justice, yet there remains a shortfall of $200 million for our national policing services. Since 1993 we know that CSIS has lost more than 20% of its overall employees. No matter how well intentioned this legislation or other pieces of legislation, the government has to recognize that law enforcement agencies need the resources to implement the law. I cannot for the life of me understand how the government expects its law enforcement agencies to do so otherwise.

There were a number of positive amendments proposed at the justice committee. I commend my colleagues for their participation at the committee. Some of the very common sense amendments to correct this legislation pointed out glaring examples of the need for review from a balanced perspective, a non-bias perspective, particularly when it comes to matters of justice.

The participation of criminal lawyers at the justice committee was very significant in the proposal of some of these changes. Some of the changes were implemented and brought forward by members of the opposition. I acknowledge the government's openness with respect to some of those amendments. Unfortunately, however, only some of the amendments were accepted.

My colleague in the Reform Party has highlighted much of their participation. In particular, there is one change that talked of the need to include a definition with respect to Bill C-40 in clause 44 which refers to:

—nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status—

This amendment was very important. Obviously it keeps the definition very much in line with other pieces of legislation, most importantly the charter. It is important to note that the Reform did not propose this exact amendment. In fact the sexual orientation definition was not part of its proposed amendment.

With respect to the amendments the government was amenable to them. It demonstrates the importance of having an opposition do its job, do its homework, be prepared to participate and bring forward useful and meaningful amendments.

One such amendment that has received some attention already in this debate was the increased discretion of the minister with respect to this piece of legislation. It refers to the minister herself or himself, depending on the individual and their ability to assess the situation and determine the appropriateness of the extradition itself. A very significant and subtle balance must exist between the appropriate political authority of the minister in deciding surrender orders or extradition orders and the minister's role in processing these orders.

Proposed amendments were voted down at the committee level which I think would go a long way to meeting that balance. There would be judicial review at some point or perhaps a panel of individuals who would therefore examine the factual scenario to decide the appropriateness of the extraditing country's request.

A higher level of diligence is now placed upon the minister under this piece of legislation. There are significant consequences for a wrongful extradition. There are significant consequences for Canadians in reverse to have to leave this country.

All efforts must therefore be made by the minister to make the significant inquiries to ensure that the request is legitimate and that the documentation which is forwarded is in line with the entire act. I hope that is the intention of the justice department.

It is somewhat contradictory to have the Department of Justice on the one hand limiting the minister's authority with respect to suggested changes to the final appeals process under section 690 of the Criminal Code, when on the other hand in this piece of legislation the department wants the minister to have expanded discretion in determining extradition and surrender orders.

There was another anomaly I wanted to mention which occurred at the justice committee. It was the participation of Kimberly Prost who served as senior counsel for the international assistance group, a key section of the justice department's department of extradition. As I understand it she had full participation in the drafting of at least parts of bill but she did not formally appear before the committee. Of course the government would know the reasons for that.

I am also concerned with the resulting charter implications. These implications were previously mentioned and highlighted by criminal lawyers who appeared before the committee. Particularly under Bill C-40 it is difficult to understand how we will apply the human rights standard adopted in the country under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite the flaws and despite the government's intransigence in accepting some of the opposition's amendments, the bill has significant weight and merit that are worthy of support.

Tabling of documents was another aspect that was mentioned and covered by previous speakers. Obviously this is no longer required under this piece of legislation as in other pieces of legislation. It is curious, however, and consistent with the government's approach of talking about transparency that when it comes to putting it into action there appears to be a different level of accountability.

As I previously mentioned, the bill will receive the support of the Conservative caucus. The bill is consistent with the prior Progressive Conservative government's activist approach to modernizing our extradition laws. Perhaps the Senate through its legal and constitutional affairs committee will be more even handed in considering amendments to Bill C-40.

In conclusion, on balance Bill C-40 has many positive measures that outweigh the drawbacks and it is legislation we feel is worth supporting.

[Treasury Board, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. An internal HRDC report was prepared regarding numerous complaints received from transitional job fund applicants that they were getting phone calls from Liberal Party workers.

The report then concluded that “It is possible to fear that all projects approved or recommended so far have been subject to such calls”. If the Corbeil tollgating scandal was an isolated incident, why were Liberal Party workers harassing transitional job fund applicants during the months leading up to the 1997 election?

[Treasury Board, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when Liberal fundraiser Pierre Corbeil was convicted of influence peddling based on information received from one of the Treasury Board president's own employees, the government's response was “The file is closed”.

Yet slippery staffer Jacques Roy kept his job with the Treasury Board president and the government provided no assurances that the confidential information would be kept out of the hands of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to those applicants for government funding how their names can be protected from Liberal kickback artists?

[Pornography, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of my constituents recently joined together with other Canadians to wear white ribbons against pornography. In particular, several local chapters of the Catholic Women's League in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough sent me hundreds of white ribbons to express their opposition to the destructive and harmful effects of pornography.

In an era where the CRTC grants broadcast licences to the playboy channel but denies similar privileges to single faith Christian broadcasts, we as parliamentarians need to be vigilant against the spread of obscene material, especially with respect to children.

I urge all members of the House to join with me in commending the white ribbon against pornography campaign. Let us hope that the depictions of human relations in the ever expanding mass media are ones of morality, decency and respect and not personal gratification, degradation and objectification.

[Apec Inquiry, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have mastered the art of saying much but saying little, the test of integrity is performance, not Liberal talking points. The pathetic broken record responses from the Deputy Prime Minister do nothing to improve the faith.

If the government wants to get to the bottom of APEC, why is it sponsoring Bill C-44 which would allow the cabinet to fire the public complaints commission chair without any correspondence? Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board can listen to this question and answer.

[Apec Inquiry, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today the noose got a little tighter around efforts to uncover the truth about APEC. The federal court has placed the RCMP public complaints commission in a freeze mode and the process has taken so many blows that the only person in Canada that has confidence in the process is the Prime Minister and perhaps his deputy. They prefer to hide behind any cover they can find. First it was the solicitor general, now it is the mortally wounded APEC panel.

Canadians want the truth. When will they get straight answers and an independent judicial inquiry?

[Parliamentary Privilege, November 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased as well to take part in the debate pertaining to Motion No. 53 presented by the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. The motion calls on the House to declare that all members of the House and the Senate be treated equally before the law.

I have no difficulty with that whatsoever, particularly in view of the fact that all Canadians are certainly equal under the law. Every Canadian, parliamentarians included, must enjoy equality under the law. Protection and prosecution apply by virtue of the Canadian charter.

The member asserted that parliamentary privilege somehow creates inequality before the law for members of the House. He calls on the House to therefore renounce what he contends is an inequality.

This is a noble motion by all means but there are some misnomers that have to be dispelled. Members of parliament and senators are not free from arrest. Let us get that straight.

Privilege on the Hill, were it to be exercised in such a way that a member of the House or the Senate were attempting to avoid prosecution by remaining on the Hill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, would perhaps be a worse fate than criminal prosecution.

This would leave a wrong impression if we were to suggest this were the case.

It is unfortunate as well that the word privilege carries so much baggage. It is not unusual for people who encounter the term to be offended by the notion that parliamentary privilege might somehow denote a special status for members. The vocabulary itself often offends the senses and sensibilities of those whose world is not so close to the study of law and history.

Like many specialities, parliamentary law has its own particular vocabulary. Sometimes the vocabulary can be confusing. The expression parliamentary privilege sounds somewhat like a perk or a class system that exists here, or even an economic advantage. We say that he is a rich man and leads a life of privilege. That is not the context of privilege as it has come to be understood on Parliament Hill. This has nothing to do with parliamentary privilege.

Parliamentary privilege is immunity under the Constitution that is necessary to allow members of this legislature to perform duties without interference. The crown recognizes and reiterates that parliament's claim to privilege at the beginning of each parliament is vital to the operation of this place. It is claimed by the Speakers on behalf of the members of the House and the Senate as they addresses the governor general. It is not an exercise in pageantry. It is not ritualism. It is a basic assertion of freedoms that enable the members of the House to discharge their duties without hindrance by persons who may seek to impede parliament through agents of the crown or through agents of the court.

We should recall that courts are the crown's courts. It is also forgotten that this is the Queen's parliament. Keeping this in mind, we can delve into the argument a little clearer. It was certainly heart warming to hear the previous speaker from the Bloc acknowledge there is a great deal of importance attached to those particular laws we have adopted in this country. Like are parliamentary history, there is rich importance to all Canadians that the matter of parliamentary privilege be respected.

In the initial appearance before the governor general the Speaker of this House on the very first day will appear. The Speaker will on behalf of all members of this House proceed to the Senate chamber. He will make a representation on behalf of this place. Let us look at those words:

The House of Commons has elected me their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfill the important duties thus assigned to me. If, in the performance of those duties, I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me, and not to the Commons, whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duties to the Queen and country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your Excellency's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may be received from Your Excellency the most favourable construction.

This sets out the request of this parliament through the Speaker for privilege of freedom of speech in this Chamber and privilege that allows these members present to do their jobs effectively.

When we return to this Chamber there are certain privileges that attach the ability to question the government, to ask probing, important questions, questions that might in some instances lead to a legal action were they to occur outside of these hallowed halls. I suggest it is one of the most important duties that members of the Chamber can engage in, particularly from the opposition side of the House. I think all members will be quick to agree that is a useful exercise to engage in a process where the government is required to at times defend its actions.

Privilege is a particular immunity under the law. There are types of privileges that the crown recognizes in law. These include the privacy of a confession and limited conversations between a person and their lawyer or physician at times. I doubt there are any members present who would want to see these privileges abandoned. Similarly, parliamentary protections or immunities exist for a single purpose. They were not just dreamed up by parliamentarians of a superior class. These immunities are in place to protect parliamentarians from intimidation and threat.

Constituents need to feel a sense of confidence that their parliamentarians, their representatives, will respect and represent them with a certain level of decorum and competence. Privileges should be exercised with discretion and common sense that is of benefit to all Canadians. Service on the Hill should meet that same standard.

There are practical reasons that need to be respected in order for these exercises to be fulfilled. Parliamentarians are not above the law. I do not think that suggestion should be left in the minds of any Canadians. They are certainly not immune from prosecution when those unfortunate circumstances might arise.

Canadians in free elections send members of parliament to the House to probe, to pry, to admonish and to advocate. We are armed with the right to speak freely within these rules. We cannot be questioned in the crown's courts for anything that we might say in the House. Other citizens may be subject to the actions of the courts but we are only subject to our own limits. not those of the crown's courts.

Americanization is a fear we might have with respect to the abolition of privilege. It might turn us into a circus-like atmosphere that we have seen in the United States in recent months. Perhaps that is not egalitarian in the eyes of the hon. member, and I say this with respect. I think this is the root concern of his motion.

However, members must be free to engage in this process that is so important to the protection of democratic rights. The abolition of our immunity would result in the egalitarianism of an oppressed society. There would be no freedom of speech in parliament.

Just think of some of the issues that we could not have debated had the rules of privilege been abandoned. Would the member for Palliser in the hon. member's own party been permitted to ask the questions that he did ask with respect to the former solicitor general in pursuit of justice? Would I in my party have been able to ask questions with respect to illegal campaign fundraising that was happening in the province of Quebec and be free from prosecution?

The literary community has recently raised the danger of what is called libel chill. The abolition of parliamentary privilege would make it open season on every elected representative, particularly those who expressed unpopular views. Libel chill would become a parliamentary petrification.

Immunity, privilege, whichever is preferred, is a necessary protection from a malevolent ruler. In ancient days it was a malevolent king who opposed parliament. Now there are very powerful forces that would be only too pleased to silence probing and prying. If we were to abolish immunity, we would invite those who disagree with any member to sue or engage us in the courts to bring about potential financial ruin if we have the courage to vigorously pursue the rights of all Canadians.

Specifically the issue of jury duty has been raised. Lawyers at the bar, prosecution lawyers, are also excused when it comes to jury duty. It has been touched on in a very practical way as to why parliamentarians should be permitted to be exempt from jury duty. All sorts of exemptions apply.

I realize I am at the end of my time limit. I am sure the member who advocates turning back the clock on this element of parliamentary privilege is well intentioned. However, this sort of privilege is something I do not feel is abused presently in this place. I am afraid it has been used in this context to revisit what was perhaps a personal vendetta that may have existed between him and a member from his own province, a member from the Senate. This is not an abuse that occurs.