Justice Committee on Oct. 7th, 2009

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm not sure why, but my translation cut off a moment ago and I missed the last 40 seconds or so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, perhaps you could repeat what you said in the last 40 seconds.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Your comments were probably translated. At the same time, I think it is of the utmost importance for Canada to protect the copyright of its citizens—this is a matter of public interest, particularly since millions of dollars of public funds have been given out on the basis of misrepresentations. Even though that evidence was not only presented publicly, but sanctioned as well by a justice of the Superior Court, and even though complaints were lodged with the RCMP in the past, no action has yet been taken to punish these individuals, whose conduct was despicable, as the judge pointed out, and who broke the law. No action has been taken to file charges relating to the fraudulent actions of the people involved in terms of obtaining public funding. No action has yet been taken by the government to present a claim for repayment of the money granted on the basis of misrepresentations.

This is where we can play a role, by putting some critical questions to a certain number of witnesses: the RCMP investigators, the Crown attorneys who contacted RCMP investigators to terminate the proceedings that had been initiated, in order to shed some light on the decisions that were made and ensure that there is some follow-up, now that the evidence has been clearly laid out and sanctioned by a court of law which, I believe, we all respect.

We are not asking for revenge for Mr. Robinson, but at the same time, laws were broken and monies were obtained fraudulently that should be paid back. That is why I am moving the following:

That the committee conduct a thorough study of the Cinar affair, and particularly allegations of political interference, with a view to determining the reasons for the decision not to press criminal charges against the persons responsible, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Does anybody else want to speak to the motion?

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

First of all, I would like to say to Mr. Ménard that, in the province of New Brunswick, there are more than 200,000 people who speak French, who are part of this country, and who are French Canadian. French Canadians living in Quebec are not the only ones that have concerns with respect to our justice system.

I would say, though, that we've all followed this case, and we know that it's a court case. I've only been here for close to four years; I wonder if we're going to get involved now in all court cases.

In rebuttal to your motion--I'm not really sure where I'm going to land on the motion, so I'm just saying this by way of commentary--we have in the past looked at allegations that touched upon members of Parliament and their role as public office holders. The Cadman case comes to mind. We didn't actually get to deal with that. The Mulroney-Schreiber matter certainly comes to mind.

I was involved in both of those discussions. The commonality, I suppose, was that they touched upon public office holders of a sort or another, past or present. You can see the nexus between our work as a committee, although not everybody agreed on each of these cases, and investigating issues regarding public office holders--or, as they were, members of the Commons.

This case, as far as I can see, emanates from a recent finding of a judgment, in effect. We have many judgments in this country that speak to large sums of money and very bad people on the defence who cause large sums of money to be awarded by judges. I just wonder....

Maybe I'll ask these questions to close with, because I'm not sure where we're going to land on this or where I'm going to vote on this.

I would like you to answer these simple questions--first, how this might be the Pandora's box where we look into almost any judgment where there has been sort of fraud found, in a civil matter, that hasn't been adequately investigated by the police.

Secondly, as you would well know, probably more than anyone here, there is no statute of limitations on the kinds of crimes that are talked about in this judgment. How do we know that there isn't an ongoing investigation that we might inadvertently muddle by our investigation?

Finally, and you might as well say it, are you talking about specific members? I think there are allegations of political interference. I mean, your statement was long enough; I'm surprised it didn't actually make the allegations as to the specific political interference. You might as well say it.

If Mr. Ménard has an opportunity to respond to those questions, I might be better informed to make my decision on his motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Anybody else on this?

Ms. Jennings, and then Mr. Moore.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have to say I am curious as to where the reference to allegations of political interference is coming from. I, too, would like to be given a little more information from our colleague, Mr. Serge Ménard.

To be perfectly honest, I think the Bloc, and possibly other parties, already have a target in mind. I am quite concerned about the fact that we do not know whether a police investigation is currently underway. I would like the government to tell us whether such an investigation is ongoing. I can understand the Bloc's frustration. Their leader has asked questions regarding this affair on a number of occasions during the Oral Question Period, and the government is refusing to provide clear answers.

So, first of all, I am curious to know whether a police investigation is in fact underway at this time. Only the government can answer that question. It does not hesitate to tell us—in other cases, for example—that it cannot comment because of a complaint, because a police investigation is underway or because the case is before the courts and that, for this very reason, the government must avoid commenting. In this case, it seems to me that the government should be in a position to tell us whether, yes or no, a police investigation is underway regarding this whole question of allegations of criminal fraud, and so on.

Secondly, I would like to receive additional information from our colleague who states, in his motion, that there have been allegations of political interference. Could he please tell us more about that? In the presentation he just made, he referred to the Department of Justice, and to officials working for that department who terminated the charge-laying process. However, the only actual politician he has made reference to is the former Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Hon. Sheila Copps, and he repeated a number of times that she herself had requested that there be a police investigation, without ever alleging that this particular minister or her successors may have tried to interfere in that police investigation. So, I would like to know who those allegations refer to, in order to make an informed decision on the motion.

I would also like to know whether the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice is in a position to tell us whether a police investigation is, in fact, underway on this specific case.

This is necessary, because this is a serious case. If the motion is passed by the committee, that will mean that bills that are waiting to be studied by this Committee will have to be set aside, based on what I heard earlier. So, we have to have an answer to those two questions. At the very least, I need an answer from the government, through the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. The other question is for my colleague, Mr. Serge Ménard.

That's it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ménard's predecessor, Réal Ménard, in the past has also brought a number of different studies before this committee. Obviously my number one concern on this side of the House is that government legislation that we're vested with at committee has hearings in due course, and I'm certainly not interested in clogging things up at all. I would like to know Mr. Ménard's thoughts, because I want to make sure—and I would also ask this before Réal Ménard—that we have some assurance that this is not going to get in the way of studies of government legislation. That to me is paramount, that we deal with the government bills that are put before the committee as expeditiously as possible. That's my only question on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, do you want to respond? There were questions from both Mr. Moore and Ms. Jennings.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I will start with the easiest one. I don't know why Mr. Murphy made the remarks he did with respect to the fact that there are Francophones in New Brunswick. It seems to me that I was careful to refer to Canadian Francophones and Canadian Anglophones. Of course, this whole affair involved something that was done in French. Indeed, I believe the plagiarized show was broadcast in New Brunswick as well. So, that argument is neither here nor there.

Why? Well, this is probably the biggest copyright case ever to have arisen in Canada. We encouraged the RCMP, we prompted it to investigate possible plagiarism and to defend patents. The investigators assigned to this case are convinced that they had causes of action. They filed charges and were subsequently told to withdraw them. Who told them to withdraw those charges? Obviously, they were told that by officials, but we would like to know, in light of what is clearly stated in the judge's decision, who asked them to do that.

I am not one to bandy about accusations, but looking at this whole affair, one cannot help but think that the instructions given the police to withdraw the charges had to have come from very high up. It is absolutely unthinkable, when you read the judgment, that a lawyer could have expressed that opinion. So, there must be another explanation, and that is exactly what we are seeking.

This is not about interfering in the work of police officers—quite the opposite; it is about understanding why the work done by the police, which resulted in charges being laid with respect to considerable amounts of public funds and very serious violations of the rights of an individual, was terminated.

It is my conviction that many people will tend to identify with Mr. Robinson, even if they recognize that they do not have his talent. It's the chicken or the egg. We are talking about a judgment which makes it clear that there was fraud, that offences were committed, that the police were aware of that and were convinced that they had the necessary evidence. Yet the work of the police was terminated as a result of instructions given from higher up. We want to know where those instructions came from. You are asking me where I am going with this; I want to go right to the top. I believe that most citizens who are aware of this affair want the same. As far as I am concerned, this is just as important as the sponsorship scandal or an investigation into monies collected by a former prime minister while in office. I am sure you realize that this is just about the most serious thing that could happen.

And other information has become available. There are documents and a letter that was produced where it is stated that Cinar was contributing 25%. That letter was essential in order for the company to receive the federal funding it was granted. And, there is another letter stating that, despite what is written in the first letter, that contribution was actually only 10%. I think someone has to take a close look at all of this. Since no one else appears to be doing that, I am appealing to our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, unfortunately the bells are ringing, so I'm going to adjourn so we can go to the vote.

I adjourn the meeting.