Mr. Speaker, the motion that we are debating today is about the fundamental requirement that those of modest economic status be able to hold those of wealth, influence and position to account for their actions and their conduct. It is about something very dear to Canadians: justice. It is about something as simple as fairness. It is about asking the government to do something that should be second nature, namely, ensuring fair treatment for those seeking to uphold rights; rights to freedom of expression, assembly and protest; rights which together constitute the most sacred tenets of democracy.
I urge hon. members opposite to reflect carefully on the significance of this motion before they succumb to their whips' orders.
We are asking the federal government to provide specific financial assistance to allow the complainants before the commission to benefit from legal assistance. Such a request was made twice to the solicitor general by the commissioners, but was rejected both times.
This is a bad decision, a decision that goes against public opinion and that is very unfair.
The refusal of the Prime Minister and solicitor general to establish a level legal playing field will render the findings of the commission suspect. It will also erode Canadians' confidence in the public complaints process. The decision goes against the grain of widely held public opinion and flatly contradicts the weight of opinion in the legal community.
Once again the government has chosen to let short term political expediency obstruct its view of the right and just thing to do. It is a self-interested decision that will not go unnoticed, but Canadians will be the arbiters of that. It certainly has not been ignored by others. The public commission itself, Federal Court Judge Barbara Reed, the Law Society of British Columbia, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, former Solicitor General Warren Allmand, the Liberal MP for Vancouver Quadra and the B.C. Liberal Party have all called for the government to reverse its decision and do the right thing.
The arguments in favour of funding legal representation are clear and persuasive.
First, there is a clear case of conflict of interest. The Prime Minister and the solicitor general have a manifest stake in the commission's findings. This means that they should not be in the position of deciding whether the student complainants receive financial assistance.
Because of his comments, the solicitor general is in a conflict of interest situation. Everyone in the country can see that, except him and the Prime Minister.
Second, the tough cross-examinations conducted by government lawyers clearly demonstrate that the complainants need the help of a lawyer. To think otherwise is to be naive.
To imply that the commission counsel, Mr. Considine, can represent the interests of one of the parties is to seriously misunderstand his role.
Furthermore, only professional litigators can hope to get at the truth from government and RCMP witnesses.
The Prime Minister said yesterday in this House that the students have nothing personally at stake here. He is dead wrong.
Let me cite the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's submission to the solicitor general:
Such hearings have the capacity to inflict substantial injury on the reputations of everyone who participates. Damaged reputations, of course, are frequently accompanied by a plethora of unhappy consequences. That being the case, elementary justice requires that the complainants, as well as the officers, have recourse to government-funded counsel.
Recent high priced additions to the Prime Minister's legal team suggest that he is more than a little concerned about damage to his own reputation.
The Law Society of British Columbia has urged the solicitor general to recognize that:
An essential principle of a democratic government is that all people are equal before the law, and are entitled to fairness and due process. The complainants appearing before the Commission are acting as representatives of the public interest. That they should have to do so without legal representation is contrary to the principles of justice and equality to which we, as a democratic country, aspire. If equality before the law is to have any meaning, equality of legal resources is needed.
In her decision, Federal Court Judge Barbara Reed makes the very same argument. She wrote:
—when decision-makers have before them one party who is represented by conscientious, experienced and highly competent counsel—they prefer that the opposite party be on a similar footing. They prefer that one party not be unrepresented. An equality in representation usually makes for easier and better decision-making.
Precedents exist from other tribunals and inquiries in recent Canadian history. The Grange inquiry into deaths at Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto and the Alaska pipeline inquiry both included funding for aggrieved parties to the dispute. I would submit that the APEC affair is no different.
Justice doit être faite. This House has a moral obligation to see to it that justice is done.