Debates of Oct. 20th, 1998

Nuclear Amendment Act, 1998

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-443, an act to amend the Nuclear Energy Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, my bill attempts to correct a longstanding and I think outrageous conflict of interest in that the same minister of the government responsible for protecting public interest and public safety is also responsible for the sale of nuclear technology around the word.

I do not believe it is possible for the same minister to fulfil both of those roles without being in conflict of interest, so we are attempting to correct that situation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce this private member's bill today.

The concept for it began when Craig Powell, Amber Keuben, Brandy Kueben and Stephanie Smith were all instantly killed by a drunk driver on June 23 near Morley, Alberta as they were returning from a camping trip.

The drunk driver in this case was Christopher Goodstoney. He was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing injury.

Criminal Code sentencing provides that a court must, in imposing a sentence, take into consideration various things including whether the offender is aboriginal.

I believe that all offenders should be treated equally. With this enactment the court would no longer be mandated to give special consideration because of race or ethnic origin.

I am happy to submit this bill on their behalf.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition this morning on behalf of Kay Malmas, a constituent of mine in Westlock, who happens to be the mother of Barbara Denelesko who was senselessly murdered by three young offenders. These three young offenders are currently back on the street, only two years after the murder of Barbara Denelesko, which disturbs and outrages not only Mrs. Malmas but many other of my constituents.

I would like to present this petition demanding tougher penalties under the Young Offenders Act on behalf of Mrs. Malmas.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Canadians living in my riding from Chestermere Lake and in and around the Calgary area. The petitioners request that the House of Commons support and enact Bill C-225 which would prohibit the definition of spouse to be changed from its traditional status and that the definition of marriage be as between a single male and a single female.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present three petitions.

The first petition comes from residents of my riding who are concerned about sexual offences against children. The petitioners support Bill C-284, which is currently on its way to committee. This bill would allow parents to make informed decisions on the hiring of those who care for children.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two additional petitions that I would like to present which relate to abortion. These citizens point out that the legal rights of the unborn are protected under the United Nations charter on the rights of the child.

These citizens are calling for a national referendum to determine whether people are in favour of government funding for abortions on demand.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by many residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas, the Vancouver area and elsewhere in British Columbia that notes with concern that the Government of Canada continues to be at the table to negotiate an international trade agreement called the multilateral agreement on investment, or the MAI, and I might add, despite the fact that France has pulled out of this particular discussion.

They note that the MAI is the latest in a series of regional and global agreements which in the name of liberalizing trade and investment expands the powers of multinational corporations at the expense of the powers of governments to intervene in the marketplace on behalf of our social, cultural, environmental and health care goals.

The petitioners point out that the MAI is undemocratic. Therefore they call upon parliament to reject the current framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the availability of governments to act in the public interest.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a couple of petitions concerning the MAI in which the petitioners call upon parliament to reject the current framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in the public interest.

This is almost exactly what the prime minister of France said should be sought when he rejected, on behalf of France, the current negotiations at the OECD. I am sure that these petitioners would want the Canadian government to follow suit, pull out of the negotiations at the OECD and seek an entirely different table at which to settle these difficult issues.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians of Serbian descent criticizing the actions of the Canadian ministry of foreign affairs with regard to Serbia.

The petitioners ask the House of Commons to consider the best interests of all citizens in Serbia for peace and democracy in the Kosovo crisis and to act on the above with honesty and integrity.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

moved:

That this House urges the government to agree to the request of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission inquiring into incidents at the Vancouver APEC summit that the government provide separate funded legal representation for the complainants in the inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my 20 minutes with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

This motion is certainly a timely motion, given the decision by the government last week not to provide funding for the students who are appearing at the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. We believe that justice demands that they be given this funding. We believe that this demand is justified not only by an elementary sense of fairness in this respect, but also by the demands and the requests of the commission.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this in the House for some days now. The point that the government seems not to appreciate or does not want to acknowledge is that the commission has twice asked the government for funding for these students.

Why this unusual request? Because the government itself earlier requested that it be allowed to do something out of the ordinary and have a battalion of lawyers there on behalf of the government and the RCMP. It is not out of the ordinary in terms of fairness for the students to expect that something similar might be done for them. It is not out of the ordinary as far as the commission is concerned because it has twice requested that the government do this.

By putting this motion today the NDP hopes to give the opportunity to the House and particularly to Liberal backbenchers to express their outrage at the position the government has taken.

We have learned that the Liberal backbenchers are being whipped into shape as usual. We are disappointed to hear that, but we hope that by the end of the day we might be able to persuade some of them, if not all of them, to come around to the wisdom of this position and vote with us. Vote with us not just for the sake of the students, but perhaps also to draw a line against the increasing arrogance of the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister himself and the way in which dissent is constantly being stifled on that side and throughout the country. The pepper spraying of the students at the APEC summit has become a symbol of that for all Canadians.

It is not just a question of pepper spraying but also other things that happened at the APEC summit. People were being asked to take signs down when the signs posed absolutely no threat to the security of any of the leaders at the APEC summit. People were being asked to sign pledges that they would not do so again. They were basically being asked to sign away their charter rights to freedom of expression.

There were all kinds of things happening at the APEC summit which concerned Canadians and the NDP. In that respect, although we have had a lot of attention paid to this issue by everybody in the last little while, I want to remind the House that this issue was first raised in the House of Commons on November 26, 1997 by me on behalf of my party. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister at that time whether he would apologize for the joke the Prime Minister had made with respect to the pepper spraying. It was the incident where the Prime Minister was asked on TV about the pepper spraying and he said “Well, pepper is something I put on my plate”. We went after the Deputy Prime Minister at that time as the Prime Minister was not present. We asked him about the appropriateness of those remarks and other things that had happened at the APEC summit.

It all could have been different if the Prime Minister at that time had taken an entirely different approach. Nobody takes any joy in this, but how different it would have been had the Prime Minister said how sorry and concerned he was about the students who had been pepper sprayed and that he was going to look into it. Afterward he might have come forward and said that perhaps they had overmanaged the APEC affair and they may have been too zealous in their concern for the comfort of visiting leaders, particularly Mr. Suharto. They could have said it was regrettable and that they would not let it happen again.

Would that not have been preferable, I say to my Liberal colleagues, than all that we have gone through now. The Prime Minister, the solicitor general, the government and the Liberal Party itself are digging themselves in deeper and deeper just out of a refusal to admit a simple mistake.

I would hope that this debate today will provide an opportunity for the government, as we have tried to provide other opportunities in question period, to fess up and say that it has handled this wrong. Or are the Liberals going to insist and are Liberal backbenchers going to collaborate in insisting that they have done nothing wrong, that nothing untoward has happened and it is only a matter of letting the RCMP Public Complaints Commission do its job, as we have heard time and time again in this House?

I think this raises a larger question, one which we have certainly paid attention to on this side of the House in the NDP. That is, is there any truth to the argument often forwarded by the government that if we simply put aside human rights, labour standards, environmental matters and all these difficult questions that get in the way of unregulated commerce and the marketplace, if we trade with everybody in an uncritical way and devote our entire foreign policy to cutting deals, to team Canada and to just making money, that this will help other people to become like us. So goes the argument offered by the government, that somehow our values will rub off on them.

APEC shows us that there is a very real danger their values rub off on us when we invite authoritarian and dictatorial leaders to this country and we act in a way as to protect their sensitivities. What are their sensitivities? Their sensitivities are about democracy. They are very sensitive to the whole idea of democracy. They are not just sensitive, they are allergic to the whole idea of democracy.

Instead of giving them a lesson when they come here about dissent and democracy and the fact that Canada and other democratic countries operate in a different way, instead of using that opportunity to stand up for our own values, we back off. We cater to them.

I think we do the wrong thing. And it is not just myself and my colleagues who are saying this. There are people very experienced in the world of dealing with east and west matters who say that the only way to deal with these things is to stand up for our own values and to play hardball with people who want to question those values. I am thinking more recently of the former governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, who has said that you do not get anywhere by kowtowing to people who have different values.

Yet this is not what the Liberal government has made a name for itself in doing. In fact it has made a name for itself by being almost supine in its relationship with these other countries, to the point where it has made former governments which did not have outstanding records on human rights look good.

I think we express today the embarrassment, the indignation and the regret many Canadians have at the way APEC was handled in the first place, but even more so in the way the government has refused to admit that something wrong happened there, that the Prime Minister was wrong in the way he dealt with this issue and the casual way he has now joked many times about this issue, as if he just does not get it. He just does not get it.

I tell my Liberal colleagues that we are going to persist with this until somebody over there gets it. This is their opportunity to show the rest of Canada that they get it, even if their Prime Minister and their leader does not. This is their opportunity to show that they take no comfort in the fact that baseball bats were not used and only pepper spray was used. Imagine, this is the argument offered by the Prime Minister. Instead of offering up an apology for his jokes about the use of pepper spray, he asks us to take comfort in the fact that well, after all they were not hit on the head with a baseball bat.

This is a pretty low time in Canadian politics. We hope that our colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party will take an opportunity to show a little independence, not just on behalf of their own self-esteem and self-respect, but on behalf of the democratic values that all of us hold in this place.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, to explain why it is we believe that this is one of the most important motions to come before the House and why we chose to allot a full day of debate on this fundamental issue.

This is about whether or not we as Canadians and we as elected members of the House are seriously prepared to say that indeed we do want to get at the truth to the extent possible within the framework of the public complaints commission. We want to get at that truth and we want to ensure that the students who are the complainants before that commission have equitable and fair representation.

I had the opportunity to attend some of the commission hearings. There is at the present time a profound imbalance. On the one hand there is a battery of lawyers representing the RCMP and the federal government; in fact just last week they hired three more lawyers. On the other hand there is a group of students, complainants in what is clearly an adversarial process, who have no legal representation funded whatsoever. That is profoundly unjust.

It is not just New Democrats who are making that argument. The public complaints commission itself on two separate occasions has appealed to the government, to the solicitor general, to do the right thing, to recognize that fairness demands legal representation for these students.

Madam Justice Barbara Reed of the Federal Court of Canada has made the same appeal. She could not have been clearer when she said in July “Without state funded legal representation, the complainants will be at a great disadvantage. There will not be a level playing field”.

The allegations and the issues we are dealing with are profoundly serious. The allegations are that during the time leading up to the APEC summit and indeed at the summit itself, far from looking solely at security concerns, the Prime Minister, his senior officials and other ministers were more concerned about the comfort of foreign dictators like Suharto. They were concerned about avoiding embarrassment to those dictators.

Therein lies the line between a democracy and a police state. I say that very seriously because in a police state there is political direction of the law enforcement apparatus of the state. That is what we saw during the APEC summit.

We saw students peacefully and non-violently protesting, being arrested and being forced to sign conditions of release, which were illegal, that they would not demonstrate against APEC or any country in APEC. We saw banners torn down. We saw the Tibetan flag at the graduate students centre taken down. We saw women, students strip searched. We saw Indonesian bodyguards, thugs with guns being allowed into Canada and the Indonesian ambassador asking what happens if they shoot somebody. We saw most ominously in many respects a young man named Jaggi Singh, one of the organizers of the APEC alert being arrested, wrestled to the ground on the UBC campus by three plainclothes police officers, handcuffed, thrown in the back of an unmarked car with tinted glass, driven off and locked up during the APEC summit.

Those are police state tactics. Those are the kind of tactics we have seen too often in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and China, as my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona has said. It was not long ago that we saw those tactics in Chile. As a New Democrat I join with my colleagues in saying that we celebrate the fact that the United Kingdom and Spain have said that Augusto Pinochet is going to be locked up and I hope tried for crimes against humanity that he committed against the people of Chile during those dark years. We welcome that.

Today is the moment of truth for Liberal MPs. There is no doubt that every member on this side of the House is going to support fairness, justice and equity for those students. I am making a direct appeal today to those Liberal members of parliament, an appeal in particular to the member of parliament for Vancouver Quadra who represents the UBC area. He has said “Yes, I believe students should have funding”. He has his chance today. He has the opportunity today to show us whether he is serious about that or whether he will be whipped into line to say no like one of a bunch of trained seals.

That member has suggested, as some other Liberal members have suggested, that it is okay because the commission has the power to use the $650,000 allocated in supplementary funds for legal fees for the students. That is absolutely false. The commission has said that it does not have that power.

More important, it is not just a legal opinion. Madam Justice Barbara Reed of the Federal Court of Canada said “It seems reasonably clear that the commission does not have the authority to issue an order to provide funding for the legal representation of students”. It could not be any clearer than that. If Liberal MPs say that the commission has the power to allocate those funds, I say to them that they are misleading Canadians. The federal court itself has said that it does not have any such power.

Yesterday the Canadian Federation of Students, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Labour Congress and many others joined in appealing to this government to do the right thing, to recognize that there must be a sense of fairness to this process, that in the absence of that, the complaints commission is a travesty of justice. It is a one sided farce.

This government keeps saying let the commission do its work. The commission cannot do its work unless the complainants who appear before the commission are properly funded.

To Liberal MPs, this is their chance to stand up for fairness for those student complainants. We should listen. The members on the government side of the House should listen to the Law Society of British Columbia which wrote to the solicitor general and said an essential principle of a democratic government is that all people are equal before the law and are equally entitled to fairness and due process.

The inquiry is an adversarial process and the complainants appearing before the commission are acting as representatives of the public interest.

The students at UBC were demonstrating not just for themselves but for all of us as Canadians with some pretty important, fundamental values. They deserve to have fair and equitable representation.

I again appeal to members on the government side of the House and to all members to do the right thing, to provide that funding and to make sure we get at the truth, so that this is not just a cover for some pretty appalling police state tactics that took place.

I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “House” the following: “strongly”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Debate is on the amendment.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas was challenging Liberal members to vote for this motion, to show some independence.

I remind the House this is not a confidence motion. The Prime Minister to my knowledge has not said it is a matter of confidence. If he did he would be even more ridiculous than he was yesterday.

The language of confidence has been taken out of the standing orders with respect to opposition day motions in 1985. For a long time we have strived toward a political culture in this place where members on both sides would feel free to vote as they wished on opposition day motions without regard to the matter of confidence.

Regrettably, we have lost a lot of ground in that respect in the last little while in the way this government has decided to treat opposition day motions.

It is not just a question of justice and fairness for the student demonstrators at APEC who made their complaint before the RCMP public complaints commission.

It is also a matter of parliamentary integrity that they stop acting like a bunch of trained seals when it comes to these opposition day motions. When we put motions before this government that call on it to do things it knows are right this government should take that opportunity and do so. Perhaps the member would like to comment on that.

Perhaps the member would like to comment on whether there are ways in which the Canadian public, in the absence of help from the government, can give aid and comfort to the students who are seeking justice in Vancouver as we speak.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those very thoughtful and incisive comments.

The member is absolutely right. This has nothing to do with the fundamental issue of confidence in the Government of Canada. This is a question of whether or not members on the government side of the House are prepared to support the fundamental principle of a level playing field before a federally appointed commission. That is what it is about, not whether or not the government should fall. We all have our views on that. But that is not the motion before the House. I trust that Liberal members will look at this in that light.

With respect to the second issue my colleague raised, there is an opportunity for those Canadians who do believe deeply that there should be legal funding if the government does not do the right thing. There is a fund which has been established by the B.C. Federation of Labour and I give the federation full credit for doing this. That fund is called the APEC protesters legal support fund. They are urging that Canadians from coast to coast make contributions. I know many have already done so very generously. I join in appealing to Canadians to do that.

I note once again what this is all about. A young student named Craig Jones on the UBC campus held up three signs. One said democracy. One said free speech. One said human rights. Those signs were torn down. Mr. Jones was wrestled to the ground and he too was locked up during the APEC summit.

That is what this is about, a profound violation of the basic charter of rights of Canadians all to kowtow to a brutal foreign dictator. We saw that.

What about the upcoming APEC summit, the ruthless suppression of the rights of people in Malaysia, the denial of funding by the Canadian government of assistance to the peoples summit there? We question this whole APEC agenda, the so-called trade liberalization agenda which really is about trampling on human rights, on the environment and on the rights of people and putting corporate profit before people.

We say no to that agenda and yes to funding for students to get at the truth about what happened in those black days around the last APEC summit in British Columbia.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as a Canadian—and I am not saying this for the sake of it or because I happen to sit in this House—I am truly and always concerned about anything that relates to human rights.

Without getting into specifics, I want to give you a few examples of what I mean. I had the pleasure of leading the delegation that travelled to Chiapas to talk about human rights. Incidentally, I am very pleased with the progress made by the Reform Party which, at the time, showed no interest in coming to see what the human rights situation was, but which has now suddenly become a champion of these rights.

I played an active role regarding the land mines issue. I also tabled a petition on behalf of the Chinese minority in Indonesia, whose rights are being trampled. I will stop here, but I do think I have a very specific interest in human rights. That is why I would like to know what really happened at the Vancouver APEC summit, in November. I would really like to know.

This truth is important to me on several levels—naturally on the level of human rights and on the level of how we conduct ourselves as a democracy. I think Canadians have the right to know that.

Beyond the TV images that upset me as they did everyone, what really happened? There is an organization, an institution established a number of years ago, whose role was and remains to direct us to the truth we are all after.

This commission was set up specifically to hear public complaints about the conduct of the RCMP. Clearly the mandate of the commission—not only as it appears in the texts establishing it, but also in the interpretation given it by its own chair—enables it to determine the truth we are after.

The interesting part of this is that the commission is an example of the commissions and administrative tribunals established by the legislator so that complainants would not have to pay for legal representation for justice to be done.

I think the motion before us today runs counter to the spirit of the legislator in establishing this commission. In purely emotional terms, it would be appealing to support this initiative. However, we must consider, as the government—and I was going to say as responsible members—the consequences of our actions.

And what are these consequences? If administrative tribunals were set up by the legislator so complainants would not need the services of a lawyer in order to be heard or for justice to be done, we are moving in the opposite direction and questioning the very principle of administrative tribunals. We are questioning the initiative of the legislator, who, regardless of the party in power, established this procedure to give the public a forum it previously lacked. The public has access to this forum without legal representation.

If we agree with the principle underlying this motion, it means—and we have to realize this—that we are creating a precedent. By creating this precedent, we are indicating our willingness as a government to adhere to the principle of providing and paying for legal services in other tribunals or in this one for other cases. This touches on the question of the costs that may be incurred as well as the real purpose of these organizations.

There is, of course, a fundamental question we must ask ourselves: Is this in the Canadian public's interest? Is this in the interest not only of the complainants in this case but also of those who may file a complaint in the future before this commission or any other administrative tribunal? Is it in the interest of complainants to say that, from now on, lawyers will be provided or that they will have to be represented by lawyers? We would then create a precedent so that things would have to be done the same way in future.

Before making such an important and far-reaching decision, I think the least we can do is to give it careful consideration. I have no lessons in democracy to learn from anyone. I say this in all humility and simplicity. This debate is not about defending democracy. Any time someone rises in this House or takes a stand nationally for democracy, whether from the NDP or any other party represented in this House, I will be the first to support any initiative to ensure that democracy in this country is not only respected but also furthered.

That is not the issue. The issue is whether it would be legitimate and responsible to fund legal representation for an individual complainant or group of complainants who have access to justice by extremely clear means that lawmakers intended to make accessible to all?

I cannot help but conclude on a somewhat sad note. Today, we are asked to fund legal representation for complainants before this commission. But for weeks now, every initiative, each and every question the opposition has put to us in this House had a single purpose: to undermine the credibility of the RCMP public complaints commission as an institution. There is a fundamental contradiction: on the one hand, the credibility of this institution is not recognized and, on the other, they want funding for lawyers to make representations to this commission. This does not make any sense. I am sorry, but I do not see the logic here.

Too often, the members opposite accuse us of blindly toeing the party line. I have been in this august place for just over a year and I cannot remember when the New Democratic Party in particular allowed its members to vote as they wished. Unless I am mistaken, and I am sure somebody will be only too glad to correct me, those members vote along party lines, whether for private members' bills or other kinds of bills.

In a great majority of cases, the same is true for many political parties. I cannot say that this is always so, because I would have to look into it thoroughly, but what is clear, and I am sure those following our debates and votes on television see this too, is that these political parties vote along party lines, but as soon as we vote according to our conscience and that turns out to be the party's collective conscience, we are no longer entitled to do so or are doing something wrong.

It is a double standard. I do not think anyone is fooled.

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

Mr. Speaker, I charge that the government is undermining the RCMP by making this a biased process, thereby making it impossible for Canadians to believe that anything coming out of this inquiry which may exonerate certain actions of the RCMP is anything more than a cover-up. I think that is shameful on the part of the government.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a quick question on the basis of this quote from the solicitor general: “Civilian oversight is a very important instrument in a free and democratic society”, in reference to the public complaints commission, “and in this case it is that very process, that informal process, that needs to be protected”.

The government is sending the chief crown prosecutor from Ottawa, aided by two lawyers from Vancouver, to protect the Prime Minister and sending David Scott, a highly experienced jurist from Ottawa. Could the parliamentary secretary advise the House how the government's sending of four lawyers, probably at a cost exceeding $1,000 an hour, works toward the so-called process of this being an informal process? The Prime Minister has turned it around and has not permitted it to be an informal process by this very high priced protection for him.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred not to have to address that, because I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues, but I am going to do so, because my colleague's question leaves me no choice. What we have just heard is not even a question, but an allegation.

All the airing of events that are supposed to have compromised the integrity of the commission and its work is the upshot of the deliberate disclosure of a private conversation on the strength of highly questionable moral principles.

In my opinion, the member opposite should be a little more honest and objective, and admit that we are not the ones undermining the commission's credibility. It is they who are doing so, with their repeated questions, unfounded allegations, insinuations and witch hunts. That is how they are undermining the commission's credibility. Them, not us.

When they talk about a cover-up, again this is an allegation for immediate political reasons that have nothing to do with the truth we are all seeking. As for the lawyers there to represent the public servants, that is normal practice. They are not the ones complaining. The complainants are complaining.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of items I would like to raise but I will limit it to one or two.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the inquiry and the commission were really designed to operate without counsel. Yet we are seeing counsel on one side and not on the other. Twice the commissioners have asked for counsel to represent the students.

What we have heard and what we expect to hear further from the Liberals today is that the commissioners have the right to allocate some of their resources for the students to hire legal counsel.

Will the parliamentary secretary tell us right now if he believes the commissioners of the inquiry can give some of their $650,000 plus to the students so that they can hire lawyers? Does he believe that is true in spite of the opinion of the federal court which clearly says exactly the opposite?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question surprises me. It is as if my colleague were unaware that the government has no right to dictate the conduct of the commission.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental question. Does the parliamentary secretary believe, yes or no, that the commission has the power to use its own funds for legal aid to the students?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

What I believe, Mr. Speaker, is of no importance whatsoever. What is important is to preserve the integrity of the commission's decision-making process. It is the one to decide.

Any response one way or the other would be an interference in the commission's integrity and independence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of being able to speak to this debate. I spent eight days at the hearing and I can bring some perspective from having been an eye witness to what is going on.

I want members to understand the impact of no funding and what it means. We have a perspective that there is an ongoing political cover-up for the Prime Minister. That may or may not be proven. Time will tell. However, what I saw was a lack of funding, no funding for Craig Jones, the first complainant, the first student on the stand. I saw a very experienced counsel for the RCMP, Mr. Macintosh, Q.C., take Mr. Jones' testimony and completely turn it on its head.

He had Mr. Jones agreeing that the entire effort was focusing on security and did not really have anything to do with the political statement. The reason the complainant, Mr. Jones, was arrested without charge and detained for 14 hours was that he was protesting the fact that he was trying to make a political statement which was shut down by the RCMP at the behest of the Prime Minister. It was a very skilful cross-examination by Mr. Macintosh.

Mr. Macintosh, on behalf of the RCMP, also got a subpoena for Mr. Jones to provide 800 pages of his e-mail. When he gave the commission those pages, Mr. Arvay who was acting on his behalf in a unpaid part time capacity said “I am sorry, Mr. Jones, but I do not have time to go through these 800 pages to determine relevance of the pages”. It fell on Mr. Considine, counsel for the hearing. Mr. Considine also said “I am sorry. I do not have time. I cannot possibly take a look through these documents to find out what is relevant”.

I understand he then went to Mr. Jones and asked for his approval to turn over all 800 pages without any reference as to relevance of the pages to the inquiry. There was an assumption on the part of Mr. Arvay, Mr. Considine and Mr. Jones that Mr. Macintosh, their adversary, would also honour the fact that there would be the execution of an examination of relevance of the documents before they were ever used in the cross-examination of Mr. Jones.

I apologize that this is a little complex but it is very important to set the background. Mr. Macintosh either knew or should have known that, when he introduced the documents pertaining to the e-mails between Mr. Jones and Terry Milewski of the CBC, those documents were irrelevant. Those documents had nothing to do with the cross-examination of Mr. Jones.

I state again that Mr. Macintosh, Q.C., either knew or should have known that the documents were irrelevant. Therefore, what was the advantage of Mr. Macintosh on behalf of the RCMP introducing these pieces of paper?

What has been happening is that Mr. Milewski, a seasoned reporter of the CBC, had been carrying on a relationship with a number of people who were parties to the issue to try to get information that was not available to him from the Prime Minister's Office, from the RCMP or from any other source, Mr. Jones being one of them. Instead of exchanging verbal communication, as it happened they exchanged documents that ended up becoming documents on a piece of paper through e-mail.

Those documents show that Mr. Milewski and Mr. Jones were exchanging the information they had so that Mr. Milewski could bring the report to the CBC and to the people of Canada as to what was going on. I say that he is a reporter of some repute, a reporter who will check his facts, and a reporter who before these stories ever went to air made sure that he had it airtight. The Prime Minister did not like it. Mr. Milewski was like a terrier on the Prime Minister's ankle.

I come back to the question. Why did Mr. Macintosh, an experienced counsel, Q.C., not know? As we understand, he should have known these documents of exchange of information between Mr. Jones and Mr. Milewski were irrelevant.

I checked with a crown counsel in my constituency who advised me that it is completely wrong court procedure for documents to be presented in examination or cross-examination that are irrelevant and clearly for the purpose of simply introducing the documents to get them into public record. I will not say it any stronger than that because I am not a lawyer and I do not understand the implications.

Because of the lack of counsel for Mr. Jones and the lack of counsel for the students, we now have the Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr. Donolo, using what Mr. Macintosh did in getting Milewski's information into the public record to attack Mr. Milewski, getting him off the case and getting the one reporter who was probably the furthest ahead on this issue out of the way.

Was there collusion? I think that is a question the Canadian public has to take a look at. Was there actually a knowledge on the part of Mr. Donolo that Mr. Macintosh was to do this in order to deflect Mr. Milewski off the case, who after all was a most troublesome person for the Prime Minister?

It is clear that this is very high stakes poker for the Prime Minister. It is very clear because, as I just presented in my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister is not only represented by Canada's chief crown prosecutor who has flown at public expense from Ottawa to Vancouver to protect the Prime Minister. He is also there aided by two Vancouver lawyers of some repute. Apparently they were concerned that perhaps this was not enough cover for the government's—the Prime Minister's—position, so they have now dispatched Mr. David Scott, QC, from Ottawa to Vancouver, a jurist of high repute. It is reported that his normal billing time would be in the range of $350 an hour. We have Mr. Whitehall, the chief crown prosecutor for Canada, we have two assistants and we have a $350 an hour lawyer protecting the Prime Minister.

The case I have cited of how they managed to use the system in a grossly adversarial way, perhaps even in connection between Mr. Donolo and Mr. Macintosh to get Mr. Milewski off the case is as clear an example as I can give the Canadian public of what this issue of lack of funding means.

On the issue of going forward with setting a precedent, the precedent has been set. Take a look at the number of inquiries where people, complainants, coming to inquiries have been funded. The only reason why this particular case is in the hands of the public complaints commission as opposed to an independent inquiry is part of the cover-up in the first place.

What is going on here is that the solicitor general has seen to it that the power remains in the hands of the Prime Minister and the government. The solicitor general has shamelessly acted and continues to act as a cover for the Prime Minister rather than doing his job as the chief advocate for the people of Canada in his role as the Solicitor General of Canada.