Debates of Oct. 20th, 1998

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member is asking for additional time, if I understand him correctly, to ask more questions of the solicitor general.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I will be sharing my time on this very important issue with the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

We were very honoured, or almost, by the presence of the Solicitor General in the House for a few minutes. Once again, however, it is apparent that the Solicitor General has more answers to questions when he is in an airplane, or a gym with a towel wrapped around his waist, than in the House. It is a little bit unfortunate, but I would rather see the Solicitor General in his suit, here in the House, even if he does not answer my questions, than in a gym.

The important thing is that the government has been telling us for weeks that we must put trust in the commission, in the process, in the commission's credibility. Our problems are not with the commission.

The commission itself admits, in two letters it sent to the Solicitor General, that in the interests of legal fairness to the complainants and of credibility in this exceptional situation, the students should be given legal financial assistance.

The government, probably the Prime Minister, told the Solicitor General: “Now listen, you are not paying for the students. Figure your own way out of that. It is your turn at the bat.” It is as clear as that. He comes and wastes our time in the House by trying to use up his full 10 minutes and saying almost nothing.

The commission is important. There is fear of creating a precedent. I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary here in this House this morning talking about setting precedents, and all that. The precedent has been set. First, provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being attacked. That is one precedent. The second is that an additional $650,000 is being given to the commission. This has never been done before. And nearly a year of preparation for the hearings. That too has never been seen before.

Lawyers are hired, not legal aid lawyers working for minimum wage. A whole gang of lawyers traipsing from Ottawa to Vancouver and probably earning hundreds of dollars an hour. I have no problem with their earning a good living, but I do have a problem with their being allowed to travel from Ottawa to Vancouver. Vancouver is a very fine city, but could the students there not also be helped to defend themselves properly?

This process is tainted with political influence. Everyone knows this, but the other side of this House will not admit it. There is fear of creating a precedent but, I repeat, the precedent has been set by the Prime Minister's political intervention at the APEC summit, via the RCMP.

A precedent has been set by the Prime Minister's buffoonery about the events in Vancouver. Only someone as foolish as those on the other side of this House could say everything is just fine and make ridiculous comparisons, like the reference to baseball bats. The Prime Minister may not be Mark McGwire but the Solicitor General does bear some resemblance to a baseball catcher, as he is the one who always ends up with the ball. This must stop. It is a matter of credibility.

The Solicitor General said it. For weeks now he has been discussing this issue with the Prime Minister and with cabinet members. He talks about it to everyone, but he refuses to discuss it in this House. He is probably not comfortable with parliamentary immunity in this House. We should all go sit on the lawn in front of the Parliament buildings, and perhaps we would get real answers to our questions.

This is unacceptable. Of course, it is a poor analogy, but it would not be the first time that administrative tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies have helped complainants. It may not be comparable from a strictly administrative point of view, but it is important.

The National Energy Board gave money to aboriginals, because they did not have the means to challenge the pipeline route. This is a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal.

When it was discovered that female prisoners in Kingston had been subjected to treatments that were in clear violation of human rights, they received financial assistance. Salaries paid to inmates are rather low. They receive some money every week for the canteen, but that is all. So, these women got some help.

Nobody objected to that. Nobody said “we are setting a precedent. We are now going to have to fund prisoners to go after police officers and prison guards and spark riots in all the jails”. Nobody said that. This was done once, and it was an excellent decision.

It is the first time that the RCMP complaints commission has to deal with such an important case. It is the first time that students, who simply wanted to show that they did not appreciate having dictators come to Canada, were charged in such a brutal manner.

This is very disturbing. Apparently, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General talk to each other several times a day about this issue. We hope the Prime Minister will tell the Solicitor General “Listen, enough is enough. Go back to the dressing room for a few months. We will make a substitution. There will no longer be any political interference regarding what happened to the students at the APEC summit”.

I hope our Liberal colleagues will support the NDP motion. The member for Vancouver Quadra, for example, former secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, supported the request. The B.C. Liberals also agree that the students should get help. Things are being blocked here in Ottawa at the PMO.

I do not understand. I hope all the members, back and front benchers alike, will support the motion to defend the most important thing in this country: fundamental rights. I hope they will.

I would like to ask the member opposite to consult his colleagues and the people from British Columbia. It would be a good thing if the Liberal Party agreed to support the NDP motion to prevent abuse of the most fundamental rights.

I also hope that the members will tell the public and the students why they think the students do not need financial help to pay their lawyer. Talk about legal balance! It is totally disgusting.

So, that said, I sincerely hope that, in future discussions on fundamental rights and the Canadian Constitution, the Prime Minister does not go bragging about having signed the charter of rights. He did not invent the wheel either. The Bill of Rights existed under Diefenbaker.

The Prime Minister is gloating over that, but showing no respect for those whose charter rights have been trampled. This is very serious. The Prime Minister is breaking his oath to uphold the Canadian Constitution and all the related provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I hope that the student plaintiffs in Vancouver will get all Canadians and all Quebeckers to understand and accept their message so that this situation will never recur. One of the ways to ensure that it never happens again is for the back-benchers, the front-benchers, and those in between, to support the NDP motion.

If the government has managed to find close to three-quarters of a million dollars to fly lawyers off to one of the most beautiful cities in the country, Vancouver, I believe it could have given 25 cents on the dollar, as the saying goes, to the students. It could give the students just one-fourth of what it is spending on its lawyers' hourly fees and expenses for accommodation, transportation and so on. That would be a beginning, but it refuses to do so.

There is no bottom to the pockets of the government and the RCMP when it comes to the number of lawyers it can afford to send to the commission of inquiry. This makes sure the plaintiffs will be at a total disadvantage.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I state my support for the motion put forward by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. Since our return to the House of Commons on September 21 we have watched daily how the government has continuously fumbled the ball with regard to the APEC inquiry.

Things are definitely going from bad to worse, for what value do Canadians hold more sacred than freedom of speech? It seems that what matters most in this instance is, instead, protecting the Prime Minister's reputation.

In the fall of 1997, the Prime Minister gave orders for repression of the students. It is now obvious, a year later, that he has not learned any lesson from this. His repression of the students continues.

This time pepper spray is not being used. Now the principles of natural justice are going by the board.

While the government is arming itself with an impressive collection of lawyers, the students are left to their own devices, the excuse being that they are the complainants in the case and that there is therefore no obligation to pay for their lawyers.

In fact, at the very time it was refusing to cover the students' legal fees, the government had just engaged three additional lawyers. It has also retained the services of an expensive public relations outfit to do something about its tarnished image.

But it continues to tell us it is unable to cover the students' legal fees. There is something very hollow sounding about the government's arguments. It is as though it were trying to convince us there was no such precedent in the Canadian legal system. Has it forgotten the court challenges program? This is a program that allows individuals to challenge the actions of various levels of government when they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why can the government not take a page from this program and provide the students with adequate representation before the commission? What is it afraid of? In my opinion, those involved are afraid of damaging their almighty reputation. What they do not realize is that, with each passing day, each new allegation, and each attempt to cover up the truth, their reputation is slipping ever lower in Canadians' eyes.

The proof is in the editorial pages across the nation. Already they are calling for the solicitor general's resignation. There are plenty of other examples of newspapers handing down the verdict of Canadians.

Does the solicitor general really think that denying the students funding will improve his reputation with the public? And what about the Prime Minister's reputation?

The recent cover story in Maclean's in my opinion clearly points out what is wrong with this government. The problems it has incurred are directly related to the actions of the Prime Minister. In the article Donald Savoie of the University of Moncton, who has recently finished conducting interviews with past and present cabinet ministers for his upcoming book, concludes that our national institutions, starting with parliament, and I will include cabinet, are in bad shape. They are being bypassed.

What is slowly being revealed is the existence of our own dictatorship right here in the Prime Minister's office. We have watched the Prime Minister from go from not knowing what pepper spray was to being something he puts on his plate. He then makes the weakest of apologies and goes on to declare only a few days later that he was happy to have pepper spray instead of rubber chicken.

Yesterday he floored Canadians when he went on to say that the pepper spray victims were lucky that they were not beaten with baseball bats.

Pepper spray is a banned substance in Canada. It is illegal to bring it across the border from the United States. Women can no longer purchase it to protect themselves. Yet the Prime Minister feels it was civilized and appropriate for the dispersal of a gathering of non-violent protesters on a university campus. Plain common sense would tell us that those remarks were inappropriate. However, the Prime Minister makes no apologies. I conclude he must believe he is above that.

The students have been victimized in the affirmation of their charter of rights. Now the solicitor general has victimized them again by refusing the commission's second request for funding of legal representation for the complainants. The common sense approach to this would be to either provide both parties with legal representation or to have both parties appear before the commission without legal representation.

Day after day the solicitor general has told this House in question period that he has every confidence in the commission to find the truth. He states we should let it do its work.

Meanwhile, the commission has told him not once but twice that it requires funding for the students' legal representation. In the commission's view this is needed for it to continue to do its work in proper fashion.

We have seen some very courageous and sensible arguments today on this motion. Common sense is something we have come to realize is desperately lacking in the government today.

Our ancestors fought world wars and sacrificed their lives to assure future generations of this country the freedom to express their views without censorship. The power of freedom of expression is a notion that came alive for us in this House when we had the privilege of hearing Nelson Mandela's powerful words only a few short weeks ago. It is sad to watch this hypocrisy before us now.

The PC party was never afraid to face down a bully on this planet. I take great pride in telling this House that my caucus will not take a step backward from the bully who runs this government today.

We have seen time and time again the Prime Minister and his cabinet being guilty of abusing their powers of office. They have gone on witch hunts in the Airbus allegations. They cancel helicopter contracts only to purchase others, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars for their partisan views.

More recently we have seen the way they act by whipping their backbenchers to vote down the full compensation to the hepatitis C victims. We have seen them shuffle those within their own ranks for speaking up for Canadians, for speaking up for the very people who put us here. They spoke in the context of common sense and were then gagged for doing the right thing. The bullying arrogance of the government has become its greatest curse. Canadians are beginning to see the true colours of this government.

This motion does not ask the government to admit any wrongdoing. However, it does appeal to all in the House today to grant the commission its request to a level playing field. Let us give the students the funding they need to present their case. Let us all use our common sense and do the right thing. Let us allow the complaints commission to do its work in seeking the truth.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Progressive Conservative Party for its support on the NDP's opposition motion today. I have just one simple question for the member.

Two questions were asked to the solicitor general earlier in our debating back and forth about whether in his opinion the $650,000 which was recently allocated to the commission could go toward funding the legal assistance for those students. I would just like to get the member's opinion about this.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly some of this money should go to the students.

When we look at big government today we see that it is certainly represented by legal assistance and has qualified for legal aid, but our own Canadian students who are unemployed, have little revenue and are facing high debts when they exit university are faced with borrowing money to have good representation.

I find the government certainly should compensate these people and make sure there is a level playing field at the commission and all parties are equally represented. If they are not going to give representation to these students, they should not give representation to anybody else on this commission.

[The Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, employment insurance; the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, the APEC summit; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Riviere-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the millennium scholarship fund.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak against the motion proposed by my colleague across the House for many reasons, one of which is because this motion is purely and simply politically motivated and partisan in nature. It is not in the public interest and it has created a lot of confusion throughout the country.

All my colleagues had to do was look to the solicitor general's report on the public complaints commission which was tabled some time ago in the House. I think if we were to have a close examination of this report we would see that it speaks eloquently to the important civilian oversight role the commission plays in our society as a whole. This report discussed how important it is to stay true to the form and function of its mandate as parliament intended.

The introductory message from the chair is quite to the point in this regard. Madame Heafey wrote:

Our role at the RCMP public complaints commission is to help to maintain the harmonious relationship that must exist between the public and the RCMP. The commission's primary mandate is to ensure that the public complaints process is conducted with impartiality and fairness both to members of the public and members of the RCMP.

The chair goes on to say that the process can be too often litigious, with the net effect being to restrict the benefits that flow from the resolution of disputes, disagreements and misunderstandings.

In her annual report the chair vows to focus more sharply on effective results:

The commission must always seek the least formal and most efficient options to resolve complaints, without compromising the values of impartiality, fairness and transparency.

I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with one of my colleagues.

It is this issue of the relative informality and less legalistic approach to dealing with and resolving complaints that is so important to the average Canadian. The commission can make findings and recommendations based on a balance of probabilities, not the criminal law standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is this kind of pragmatic and practical approach that Canadians find reasonable. The commission chair writes:

Often, the commission, as a neutral third party, is able to pinpoint the cause of disharmony between the public and the police, with the result that both parties can acknowledge and accommodate their differences.

The chair of the public complaints commission goes on to say that the commission is not a court of law. This is important for my colleagues to hear:

Even in more challenging disputes, we must not lose sight of the fact that the commission's public hearings are, essentially, inquiries of public interest; the commission should not be fettered by the kind of precise rules that govern criminal and civil trials. Timeliness and efficiency contribute to the credibility of our response.

Here in a nutshell is what is so important about the process, one which would be adversely affected by injecting into it extra counsel that is publicly funded.

The chair promises a revitalization that will in the year ahead strengthen the commission's ability to make a positive and constructive contribution to Canadian society.

I would like to remind my colleagues on the opposite side that Canada is a very peaceful nation which places a premium on the rule of law. Our police always respect this rule of law and the value of human rights. The public has a high regard for the police. One only has to compare public sentiment toward the police in this country with that of other democratic countries with roughly equivalent systems of government to see that we live in one of the finest democracies in the world. We have the finest police forces in the world at all levels, municipal, provincial as well as federal.

As the commission pointed out in its annual report, complaints about the RCMP normally arise from the stresses of policing. Usually these issues are more about degrees of conduct than about true violations of Canadian standards and values. This may or may not be the case with the issue at hand, but it is clear that too many of my colleagues are rushing to judgment. Society's expectations of police are high and nowhere are they higher than with the RCMP.

The RCMP, our federal police, also act as the provincial police in eight of the ten provinces as well as the territories. The RCMP has given Canadians exemplary police services over the years. They are determined to maintain that high standard. That is why the RCMP, as does the government, want this hearing to take place, to be expedited and to come to its finding as soon as possible.

I think that as Canadians watch the hearings in Vancouver take place, they see a vital Canadian institution in full flower. They see a comprehensive public hearing being conducted with rigour and fairness by a very able panel assisted by very able staff.

The public sees a commission counsel who leads the witnesses through their testimony, introduces documentary evidence, protects the witnesses and explores all facets of the issue. The public is getting the most exhaustive examination of the issue possible.

Members should also be mindful that the commission initiated this hearing. It was not at the government's request; the government did not ask for this hearing. The commission decided independently to undertake it on its own. Its finding will be independent and unfettered by government influence. The government cannot edit the report; the commission presents it as its findings.

In short, let the commission do its work using the process put in place by parliament. Let us not second guess its outcome, its ability, nor its ambit. Let it follow the evidence and testimony wherever it may lead, for the benefit of all Canadians, with the ultimate aim of reconciliation.

I do not want to belabour the issue but my colleagues on the opposite side are trying to milk this issue for all its worth. It is plain partisan politics, pure and simple. I find it shameful for my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to stretch the issue to that extent without full knowledge of the mandate and responsibilities of the commission in its independent role.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member talk about justice and democracy while we know full well that his entire party has been whipped into opposing this motion tonight. If he believes in democracy, why do the Liberals not hold a free vote on the issue and allow the individual members of the Liberal government to decide their fate?

The member talked about the RCMP and what a great job they are doing. Yes, the RCMP do a wonderful job in this country. At the same time, the Liberal government cuts funding to the RCMP, shuts down the base in Regina for a period of time and continually harasses police officers across the country with cutbacks to their services, making their job more and more difficult.

The real problem in what the students did was that they did not fight back. If the students had pepper sprayed the police, they would have been charged before a court of law and their legal fees would have been handled by the courts. They would have been handled by the government of the day. Is he suggesting that in the future if students are going to have peaceful protests, they should resort to violence in order to have their legal fees covered?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you heard it yourself. I have never seen anyone so totally out of touch on the issue. It is my colleagues in this party who are standing up now to speak. The member's colleagues are undermining our democratic institutions and our democratic process. They are the ones who are undermining the ability of our police to do their work. They are the ones who are taking the time of the House of Commons in order to debate an issue we have gone through over and over again.

The commission is an independent body and not a court of law. Any citizen has the right to appear before that commission and have his or heard case heard.

Now the member is telling me that he wanted the students to spray police. What a shameful suggestion for my colleague from the New Democratic Party to make in this House. It is obvious he is not serving the institution as well as he should be. Otherwise he would have stood up and said that he would not make any comments before the commission made its finding, that he would not comment before the commission had a chance to hear the cases and make its report to parliament. Frankly, the hon. member is out to lunch.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to hear this level of debate from that member. I believe him to be an intelligent person. Therefore he must be wilfully ignorant of the facts that surround this issue. He chooses to ignore the fact that the people of Canada may deem this to be a biased and unreliable commission which would be to the chagrin of the commissioners.

I am fully supportive of the three people who are doing that job against all the odds set up by this government, the solicitor general and the Prime Minister. I am fully supportive of the public complaints commission process. But the government has chosen to fund the protection of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada with about $2,000 an hour of lawyer's fees on one side. What fair minded Canadian cannot possibly arrive at the very logical conclusion that this is stacked against the protesters?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where my colleague got the information that the public has no faith in the public complaints commission. It is the opposite. Canadians have every faith in the public complaints commission.

Canadians have every faith in our democratic institutions. They know that anybody who appears before this commission will have a fair hearing. The counsel for the commission clearly stated that he will assist the witnesses, that he will help them out in order to make sure their case is heard before the commission.

Frankly, and I said this a little earlier in a question to a member of the NDP, had any mishap taken place at that meeting, my colleagues from the Reform Party would have been the first ones on their feet in this House trying to attack the government for not providing security to our guests, dignitaries visiting our country for this international meeting. They would have been the first ones to stand and attack the government.

They cannot have it both ways. They have to let the police do their work. This is a police initiative. The police are doing what they have to do within the framework of the law in a most comprehensive and humane way. Let them do their work. My colleagues should back off and let the commission conduct its hearing. They should stop yapping on this issue until such time as we get a report.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate without any feeling of pleasure whatsoever because I feel the debate has been a misuse of this parliamentary forum. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

I sat during question period today and all the previous days when the accusations were flying back and forth. There were accusations that the Prime Minister had to apologize for something no one knew for sure he had done or not, this kind of thing. There were the attacks on the solicitor general for having made some remarks in an airplane. I looked up at the public gallery today and I saw a school group that had come to watch parliament at work. They heard accusations, innuendoes, catcalls and jeering. It was very loud. There were hardly any questions of any substance.

Indeed on other occasions in this House all the questions have been on this very subject of APEC and statements made by the solicitor general, while all kinds of other issues, issues of great importance to this country, have been ignored. We went through a whole period in which this country was in dire jeopardy because of the collapse of financial markets around the world. It was a serious problem. I do not know about people on the opposite side but I can say many on this side were thoroughly frightened by what was happening in southeast Asia and Latin America. And we are not past that crisis yet. There was not a word in the House on that.

There was not a word about issues like hepatitis C. That was such an issue with the Reform Party at one point and now it has disappeared.

I am saddened because I remember. I must say that with respect to the New Democratic Party, I expect nothing more of them and I expect nothing more of the Conservatives either. This type of tactic in the House of Commons was the hallmark of the NDP and the Conservatives in the years before 1993. I will say at the very least that one of the reasons parliament changed after 1993 was that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party really did come here to try to make changes and try to bring dignity to parliament.

In these past weeks this has all been lost. Now they sit there. I am sorry there is not a school group in the House so that they could see my colleagues opposite who have nothing more to do but to catcall and heckle. They know I am speaking the truth and they know they should be ashamed of themselves.

I will take another step along in this argument. One of the key points in this argument was the fact that the member for Palliser was sitting on an airplane and overheard a private conversation that was occurring a few seats over from him. This has caused great controversy in this House. The suggestion has been that this has compromised the public complaints commission hearing into the APEC situation.

I would suggest that the contempt that was shown for that commission was shown by the member for Palliser who brought it up in this House and made it a point of public debate. Had that conversation remained private, the public complaints commission never would have heard of any thoughts of the solicitor general. I suggest it is the member for Palliser who ought to search his conscience in compromising the public complaints commission.

When we talk about people talking out of school and being recorded by their colleagues, let me say that walking down the corridor last week I happened to encounter the member for Kootenay—Columbia who is a Reform member.

He expressed to me pleasure at the questions he was asking on APEC. He said he was having such fun and that there was no limitation on what he could do. There was not even any control in his own party.

In other words, he did not tell me that he was doing something he thought was important for the nation or he thought was really exposing a problem with the Prime Minister or the government. He said that he was having fun and that he was getting the Reform Party's name in the media. That is what it is. It is a media game.

I should point out that I know what I am talking about because I spent many years in the media. Something I am disappointed about that has occurred with my colleagues in the Reform Party, and less so perhaps with the Bloquistes, is that they are talking with the media and they are conducting question period in terms of the type of headlines they hope to get rather than addressing substantive issues.

I will give members a classic example. Yesterday in this House we debated Bill C-54. This is important legislation that deals with the privacy of individuals. This is legislation introduced by the government that would set rules and regulations governing the way private enterprises can disclose personal information about the citizens of Canada.

This is important legislation. When I spoke I said that the legislation had flaws and that it needed to be debated. The Bloc Quebecois responded many times with very compelling arguments.

What is so very interesting about that debate is that if we look at Hansard we will find that only one Reformer spoke. Only one Conservative spoke. Most of the exchange occurred between the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois.

Who cares about good governance in this country? Who cares about the future of Canadians? It is the people who engage in meaningful debate, not the hecklers, not the ones who can sense an opportunity and go on the attack using innuendoes that have no foundation in truth. People who engage in those tactics should be ashamed.

I expect nothing more than that from the NDP and nothing more than that from the Conservatives because they come from the traditional parties that did nothing more. But I expected much more from the Reform Party and I am disappointed. I think members of the Bloc Quebecois have acquitted themselves quite reasonably in this instance. At least they debate real legislation.

Now I come to the issue of financing for lawyers for the students who are appearing before the Public Complaints Commission. Whatever happened to candour? What is wrong with young people coming before the commission and explaining what they saw happen? Why can they not speak from their hearts? Why do they have to get lawyers?

What is wrong with this country is that because of previous political parties giving funds to all kinds of special interest groups we are lawyered to death.

We read in the paper last week about the hepatitis C issue, which was pursued persistently by the opposition. What did we find? We found a gaggle of lawyers on the west coast who hope to gain millions upon millions of dollars in contingency fees if the government pays up for the hepatitis C victims. Is that what members on the other side want? Are they out to benefit lawyers?

I am very surprised. I expected more of my colleagues who were elected in 1993 and in 1997 who came to parliament to change things. I deplore seeing parliament turned into a heckle house, into a chicken coop, a place where sheep cross the floor.

Look, when you baa, we baa. You baa, but you are the ones who are baaing first. You are following the example of the press. You are allowing yourself to be led into controversies that have no substance.

I can tell members opposite that I am getting no complaints in my office. Those members are fond of saying they speak for Canadians. Quite frankly, they are not speaking for Canadians. They are speaking for themselves. They should be ashamed of themselves. Those members should have brought dignity to this parliament. I do not know what to do with them.

I know Canadians are looking at this debate and making their judgment because in my office, on my constituency lines, I only hear silence. Nobody is on the side of people who will merely throw garbage across this floor.

I beg members of the Reform Party to bring back to this House the kind of dignity it once had. Maybe they could follow the lead of members of the Bloc Quebecois because they have shown themselves to be far better parliamentarians than any of the others on that side.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a couple of things that the member said.

He talked about the importance of the issues that need to be discussed in the House of Commons and what was taking place. I would like to know, exactly what does the member think about democracy?

We have a group of people who are doing what men and women died for on the fields of war. They died so we could have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In a democratic country we have the right to do this. Does the member dare to stand up and say that democracy is not an important issue when it has been abused so severely?

It is true that a commission was set up to deal with this issue. Unfortunately, the government had a blabbermouth. When he opened up his mouth and started talking about the issue the commission plainly said that jeopardized its investigation. Now we are getting into a legal process. This government and its absolute disregard for democracy is what has caused the problem, not the students. Those members had better recognize that and recognize it now.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I say to the member opposite, what rubbish. He cannot give me lessons on democracy. He knows full well that this is a country which respects the dignity of individuals, probably to the highest degree of any democracy in the world.

We have the Public Complaints Commission to make sure that our police forces, be they the RCMP or any other police force, do not step out of line. That does not happen in other countries.

We talk about the incident. I was not there when the incident occurred with the demonstrators. However, as a former student, I know what it was like to demonstrate in the late 1960s because I was one of those sixties individuals. That was the era of the protest march. We protested all kinds of things. We tried to elicit a reaction from the police or from the politicians because that is what we did in those days. We sought that type of response. It was a game. We have to allow for the fact that perhaps these students may not have had all the right motives when they engaged in this particular protest.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the remarks he just made, the member for Wentworth—Burlington referred to oral question period.

From my seat, I noticed two groups of grade-12 students in the gallery behind you, Mr. Speaker. These students are likely to vote for the first time in the next provincial or federal election.

The member said time was being wasted and he was ashamed. I think he is completely confused. He is probably not ashamed to see students in this place, but more likely ashamed of his Prime Minister's lack of respect for students.

First of all, he ridiculed them by saying that pepper is something he puts on his plate, when we have seen time and time again on television how pepper was used. That was holding up students to ridicule.

Yesterday, during oral question period, the same Prime Minister said students were better off being pepper-sprayed than beaten on the head with baseball bats.

What kind of Prime Minister is this? Is the member ashamed of the opposition or ashamed of his Prime Minister and his government?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, shame on the opposition.

The member opposite illustrated it perfectly. Instead of raising a point that is substantial to the governance of this country he admitted that question period has been engaged for weeks on one or two maladroit remarks made by the Prime Minister or the solicitor general.

There are all kinds of problems out there that we should be be addressing as a parliament.

Let me also say that when I saw the film clip of the RCMP spraying the students I was alarmed. I was very concerned. Do not ever mistake that. I think it is absolutely right to have the Public Complaints Commission investigate this. But we Canadians do not prejudge people.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points on this issue and tell the House why we should be supporting this motion.

The complaints commission is to deal with two or three issues which are very important. One is to determine whether or not excessive force was used by the police. Another is to determine whether or not the police action constituted illegal acts. In other words, did they do things without legal authority and, if they did, were they motivated by instructions from the Prime Minister's office?

There is evidence to suggest that this situation has to be looked at. There is no question that the lawyers for the RCMP are not going to pursue that evidence. There is no question that the lawyers for the government are not going to pursue that evidence. That leaves it up to the commission counsel. That is not good enough.

There must be a legal pursuit of any evidence that suggests that there was manipulation by the Prime Minister or members of his office that caused the RCMP to act in a way that was improper or illegal. The commission must have the capacity to do that.

I submit that we do not have that now. We must have trained, experienced legal counsel to make submissions and motions for further documentation that they feel is necessary to be examined by the commission, all types of motions to ensure that this area has been completely and thoroughly exhausted so that when the report comes down we will have the answers. Was excessive police force used? Were there illegal acts committed by members of the RCMP in taking down signs where there was no constitutional or legal authority to do so? Was there any action taken by the police, particularly that which may be termed to be without legal foundation, which was motivated by instructions from the Prime Minister's office?

The commission must have the capacity to do that. What the motion before the House today, which we will be voting on later, clearly indicates, and what the discussions and the debate today indicate, is that we do not have that capacity within the commission now. That is one of the reasons, I suggest, the commission has asked for legal representation for the students.

If we want to rest assured when the report comes in that all avenues of investigation have been exhausted to determine those points—whether excessive police force was used, whether illegal police force was used, and whether any of it was motivated by instructions, or counsel, or intimidation, or whatever from the Prime Minister or his office—we must have legal counsel there.

That is why all members should consider supporting this motion when we vote on it later today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.