Mr. Speaker, the case of Peppergate is becoming more and more complex as we have the solicitor general continuing his cover-up for the Prime Minister by using a body that was never designed for this purpose.
There are many people in Canada who make a very good living at building two or three or four houses a year. They are contractors, very reputable people who build those homes. However, I would never ever use any of those contractors to build a 60 storey skyscraper because they lack experience. They are totally lacking in expertise. They just simply do not have the ability to get the job done.
I make a comparison between the Public Complaints Commission of the RCMP and a small contractor. The purpose of the Public Complaints Commission is clearly set out in section 45.35(1) of the RCMP Act:
Any member of the public having a complaint concerning the conduct, in the performance of any duty or function under this act of any member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of this act, may, whether or not that member of the public is affected by the subject matter of the complaint make a complaint.
This is to get to the bottom of any alleged misdeeds by the RCMP. What we are talking about here very clearly and specifically is alleged misdeeds of the prime minister, of the foreign affairs minister and of this government.
Furthermore, any evidence taken under this act will be taken under section 37(1) of the Canada Evidence Act which reads:
A minister of the crown or other person interested may object to the disclosure of information on the grounds of the specified public interest.
In other words, this board, this commission, is not an inquiry. It is a Public Complaints Commission capable of building houses, not skyscrapers, and truly we have a skyscraper.
To underscore the point that this body does not have the expertise, I am not questioning any of the board members or their integrity. That is not the issue. The issue is their expertise and their ability to get the job done.
I point to the finding of Justice Reed on the matter of whether the board should have called for the funding of the students. In that he came up with two reasons, and I quote:
The board said that the commission's duty of impartiality would be compromised by advocating for a benefit in favour of only one of the parties before it.
That is the complainant. She continues:
Submissions by the commission of the federal government for the funding requested would intrude on the exclusive power of parliament to legislate the entitlement which is sought.
This is not me speaking; this is the judge speaking. She says with respect to the first ground on which the commission based its decision “the conclusion is inaccurate”. Also she says with respect to the assertion that the recommendations would intrude on parliament's executive power to legislate “that is also incorrect”.
This is the key. She says that the commission was operating on misunderstandings of the law. This is the board that is supposed to be looking into whether the foreign affairs minister and the prime minister were indeed involved in this matter.
I suggest—as a matter of fact I charge—that this board is being used as a cover-up for the prime minister and for the misdeeds of he and his foreign minister with respect to APEC.
That is my assertion and I say this on the basis of the fact that the board unfortunately in the judgment of Justice Reed is incompetent.