Debates of Oct. 20th, 1998

Supply

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his appeal for reason. Unfortunately there are some facts missing from what he had to say.

He said he was surprised by the acceleration of this incident. He cannot understand why opposition members are concerned about this. The truth of the matter is that it is Canadians who are concerned about this. They are concerned about the actions that were taken at APEC. They are concerned that there are notes in police officers' files saying things such as PM wants tenters out, or there is a direct link between the Prime Minister's office and the operations of APEC. Canadians are concerned about the fact that there is not a level playing field for the students.

In fact the opposition members will not stop bringing these issues up until the government comes clean with some answers, until it admits its responsibility. The Prime Minister is the one who ducks and weaves. The solicitor general is the one who said he could not remember who the individual was who sat beside him and then it turns out it is a friend he has known for 15 years. That is unbelievable.

The solicitor general may be a nice man, but if he is going to stand in this House as an elected representative and take on the role of solicitor general, then he has to abide by the responsibilities of that job. That is what we are talking about here.

I do not see my hon. colleague in this place to respond to the question, so I will just simply make that comment. That is why we are continuing to ask the government why it simply will not tell us what it is that happened at APEC, the Prime Minister's involvement, the solicitor general's involvement, the fact that he prejudiced the outcome of the PCC investigation by his comments on the plane and he will not resign.

It is because of that fact that opposition parties will continue to pressure the government on this issue and other issues. It is our role and our job to keep this government accountable for its actions. We do not apologize for it. In fact, we promise the government more of the same.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to make some comments and raise some questions following the speech by the member for Winnipeg South.

The member in his attempt to appeal for reason in this chamber has clearly underestimated the seriousness of the issue we are dealing with. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has just said, he has very much trivialized the issues at hand.

What is so clear today is that we are dealing with a fundamental matter of human rights and the pursuit of freedom and justice in a democratic state. All of those questions are in doubt today surrounding the actions pertaining to student demonstrators at APEC last year.

The comments of the member for Palliser on the conversation he overheard pertaining to the solicitor general are all serious. The member for Winnipeg South is disregarding the importance of this input and this debate. I would very much like to ask the member for Winnipeg South if he does not feel that we need to operate on the basis of a level playing field. We need all the facts on the table. We need to understand that the proceedings before the complaints commission have not been prejudiced or prejudged.

The member for Winnipeg South was no doubt at the meeting in Winnipeg when his leader the Prime Minister cracked another joke pertaining to pepper. I wonder how the member feels about the way in which this matter has been trivialized by the Prime Minister and whether he would not join us in acknowledging that these kinds of jokes do not help the matter. They are not funny and they certainly are hurtful for the people involved.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I should indicate at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East. I would appreciate some signal from you and I expect I will get it when my time is almost up.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the motion that my party has introduced into the House of Commons today. It is an important motion. I think it is a simply worded motion. It is one that has no ambiguity; it is one that is clear and direct. I will read it so that those listening to this debate and reading the transcript of it later will know exactly what we are asking of the government and all members of the House of Commons today:

That this House urges the government to agree to the request of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission—

It is not our request, not the students' request, but is 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.

I rise to speak to the motion, having addressed this issue some time ago. As my colleagues who have spoken to this motion have noted, the day this House resumed sitting after the summer recess, my colleagues and myself at a press conference asked the government to set up a judicial inquiry to look into the role of the Prime Minister's office in the security arrangements at APEC. The Prime Minister and the solicitor general have ignored this request and they have continued to say let the public complaints commission do its work.

In the absence of a forum of a judicial inquiry, we are asking today that the public complaints commission's own request be acceded to by the government and that funding be provided for those students to at least level the playing field.

Like many of the members in this House who have spoken to this issue, I come from a legal background. I am a lawyer. I spent many years in Nova Scotia as a legal aid lawyer representing the very people, many of them students, who did not have the resources to go before public boards, public inquiries or courts without legal representation. I can unequivocally say that when one side is represented in a hearing and the other side is not, there is not a level playing field.

That is why the public complaints commission has asked for the students to have funding for legal counsel. It is not just to level the playing field, it also makes the whole process operate more smoothly. There are not questions of evidence that are not understood by one party. There can be agreements negotiated when everybody knows the rules so that the lawyers for one side and the lawyers for the other knowing the ruling can come together and simplify the process to get to the truth faster. That does not happen when there is only legal counsel for one side.

It is unfair to those people who are going before the commission unrepresented to ask them to understand all of the nuances, all of the rules that occur at a public complaints commission hearing or indeed at any other hearing.

I mentioned today in one of my questions, how many of us as members of parliament have had to help our constituents when they have had to appear before Canada pension plan disability hearings. Try to explain to a person uneducated in the law what it means to present yourself at a tribunal, what it means to understand the rules of evidence, what it means to cross-examine someone. It is unfair because they do not understand it.

Some have said that this has not happened before, that the public complaints commission has not had a history of funding counsel for those who lay a complaint. This is true. But this is an extraordinary hearing. This is not a normal everyday run of the mill complaint against the RCMP. The reason it is not has nothing to do with the students' complaints. It has to do with information that has come before the commission which has made it broaden its scope because there is evidence—and I am not making unfounded accusations, I am simply stating the facts—that leads to the very highest corridors of power in this country.

There is evidence that suggests the involvement of the Prime Minister's office and perhaps of the Prime Minister himself in the security arrangements at APEC. I am not prejudging it. I am saying that takes this inquiry out of the normal run of the mill inquiry and raises the threshold. Therefore the procedural fairness has to be beyond question if Canadians are to have any faith in the final outcome of the commission's hearing.

These are extraordinary hearings. It is not right to say we may be setting a precedent, that if we fund these students we will have to fund every other group that comes before the public complaints commission. Maybe we will, if in every single instance it indicates that the Prime Minister's office is involved. However I think we can say with some safety and some rational thought that we are now beyond the normal scope of the public complaints commission and what it usually deals with.

The pointing of fingers to the most influential people in this country has raised the threshold. Yet despite repeated requests by the commission and despite the Federal Court of Canada suggesting the students should have independent counsel, we meet with refusal after refusal after refusal by the solicitor general and his government to provide the funding that is necessary to level the playing field.

There are those who say that there are more important issues. The Prime Minister alluded to this in answering questions the week before last. They ask why the opposition is focusing on this public complaints commission. They say we should let the commission move on and do its work while we talk about something else.

There are many important issues in this country, not the least of which are economic issues. I come from an area of the country that has huge unemployment problems. However, I say on behalf of all Canadians that nothing is more precious in this country than our rights and our freedoms. When those are lost, when there is no justice, then all else crumbles. Justice is the foundation of a civil society. Without it there is anarchy.

The Prime Minister smiles, jokes and says that there are other issues. I say in reply that one may smile and smile and still be a villain. Canadians know, we in this party know and we ask this House to consider how important those civil liberties are. When they are infringed upon, the process of determining the truth is as important as what the findings themselves are.

I said in this House in my last question to the solicitor general before the House adjourned that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done if Canadians are to have faith that the answer is a true one. Without a level playing field, without Canadians knowing that these students have had fair representation, the same representation as the government and the RCMP, the findings of that commission will be suspect whether or not they should be.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We in this party and those who have spoken in favour of this motion understand that we must be vigilant in guarding not only the rights of Canadians but also the process of ensuring that those rights are guarded in a fair and decent way.

I spent the morning reading some papers and about how the late Justice Dickson had the courage to interpret the charter of rights. The courage to look after our rights is something we have pride in. The students at APEC who are challenging the police have that courage.

The question on this vote will be whether the members opposite have the courage to protect the rights of Canadians in the same way the students before this inquiry have and the same way the veterans who fought for those rights have. I ask everyone who watches or listens to this program to watch the way their member of parliament votes tonight on the very important issue of Canadian civil liberties.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. There are lawyers to represent the RCMP and there are lawyers to represent the witnesses who may be called from the Prime Minister's office. Who will pursue the evidence that leads to the Prime Minister's office if there is not legal representation for the students? If there is no legal representation in this area, how will that evidence be pursued? How will it be examined? How will it be determined whether or not there was political interference in the exercise of police authority at the APEC summit?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Having served on the justice committee with the member, I know his questions are often to the point. This is one that is because it goes to the very core of what I was saying.

Without proper legal representation, that trail is left to the students themselves. There will be some assistance by the counsel for the commission. He is to be commended and he said he will do what he can to assist the students.

I have very real questions regarding this forum even getting that far. This is why I wanted a judicial inquiry into the matter to begin with. In the absence of that, it is left to the students to try to find a way to infiltrate the very corridors of power in this country.

What that means is issuing subpoenas, understanding what subpoenas mean, understanding the time limits under which they can be served and understanding the rules under which they can be served.

I dare say few members of this House understand those rules. There are many lawyers who do not practice courtroom litigation. I dare say many of them would not understand the rules.

In the absence of legal counsel for those students, they are left to figure out the very complex rules of getting documents that the government will say are protected by cabinet secrecy, mark my words. It will say that and it is left to the students to figure out how to launch an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada to open the door to get those documents.

Those students will have to figure that out because they do not have a lawyer but the lawyers for the government will know the ways to close those doors before they are even open. I think that is the answer to the hon. member's question.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear here. What we have before us is an issue where the students are the ones who are launching the complaint against the RCMP.

What would have happened if, for example, the RCMP did not take the controlled action it took at the demonstration in order to ensure the security of our guests attending the conference?

The gentlemen on the opposite side would have been the first ones up in the House to attack the government for not ensuring the safety and security of those who were here as our guests.

This is a tremendous waste of our democratic process. These guys are standing up and trying to milk what I believe is an important issue for political expediency, nothing more, nothing less.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are two underlying assumptions I think Canadians need to recognize.

Regarding the first point made by the hon. member, the students are the ones who lodged the complaint. Why in the name of God should they have legal counsel? The underlying assumption in that question is that those who dare to challenge authority ought not to receive the support of the state in that challenge. The underlying assumption is don't dare question those with pepper spray because you have no right to and certainly the state will not protect you.

Second, he said what would happen if there was no protection. The RCMP is perfectly capable of providing protection. The Prime Minister's office is not an expert in that area.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to join with my colleagues from the NDP in speaking to our opposition day motion that really is a very important question. It has taken up an enormous amount of time in the House over the past few weeks.

The reason for bringing forward this motion today is to simply, as my colleague from Sydney—Victoria and other members of our caucus have outlined, put the question fair and square to the members of the House that the student complainants at the public complaints inquiry commission have a right to receive independent legal representation. The question before the House today is that straightforward and that simple.

I was in my riding of Vancouver East last week. It was not surprising to me that wherever I went and whatever discussions I had on many topics, the issue of the complaints inquiry came up. Everywhere I went, whether it was talking to seniors, students, unemployed people or community members, this issue came up. To hear government members today dismiss this motion and this issue as something that is politically expedient in terms of the opposition raising this issue tells me that government members have already closed their ears. They have stopped listening to what the people of Canada have to say.

After several weeks of questioning in the House, last Friday all of Canada was waiting to hear whether the solicitor general would finally agree that the students must have legal representation and the funding for that to happen. When the announcement was made and we heard the solicitor general's weak and very limp response, it was a shock. Many of us expected that this was an opportunity for the government to set the record straight and to begin to do the right thing. It was a huge disappointment after two requests from the commission the solicitor general told the House that we have to have faith in that he refused the two requests from the commission for independent funding.

It raises the question of the conflict of interest that the solicitor general is now in. On October 9 I along with my colleague raised in the House the question that the solicitor general had to acknowledge the conflict which he had placed himself in and the jeopardy that he had created for the process he had defended in the House. The conflict of interest and the fact that the very students he is denying funding to are the students who want to call him as a witness is a very serious conflict that has yet to be addressed.

It is important to go back and look at what has caused us to be at this incredible juncture today which is one of the most important questions we have considered in this parliament. We have to remember that the reason students were protesting democratically, the reason they were protesting peacefully and the reason they were exercising their democratic rights was their concern around the APEC summit in Vancouver last November.

I along with my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and other members and activists attended the peoples summit to express our very deep concern about the role the Canadian government was playing in hosting foreign leaders who not only deny and violate human rights in their countries but who were coming together to promote a system of a capital intensive marketplace that supersedes all human needs and human rights. That is why those students were protesting. That is why those students were holding up their little signs on the way to UBC. They were really putting their point on the record. The travesty that has unfolded since that time has dug us deeper and deeper into a situation where now we seriously question the honour and the credibility of this government in what it really stands for.

How many times have we heard the Prime Minister get up and say he is here defending the rights of young people or Canada has a good track record on human rights? Here is the proof, here and now today in terms of this public complaints commission inquiry. This is where Canadians make the determination as to whether we stand for democracy, whether we stand in defence of those students or whether we are about to abandon those rights. The government has made it clear where it stands.

Last September I was very fortunate to be a part of a delegation hosted by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. It visited two of the countries that are living the consequences of what APEC and trade liberalization are all about. I visited Indonesia and Thailand and saw for myself, along with other members of parliament and members of the NGO and international community, the devastation of what the so-called economic miracle in trade liberalization has been in those two countries.

It was very ironic after meeting students in Indonesia who have led the struggle there for democracy and economic and social reform at great personal risk as many of them have been jailed to come back to Canada and learn that the public complaints commission inquiry was beginning and that security here had been used as a cover to suppress the political and democratic expression against students who were exposing the same situation in Indonesia.

Very often we think that what we hold dear in this country is something that maybe we take for granted. I think we learned that day in November that we can see a government that becomes incredibly arrogant through the decision of a Prime Minister and that interference at a political level can violate those democratic rights and basically trample on young people who are trying to defend their rights here and to speak out against dictators like Mr. Suharto and other thugs who have suppressed their own people's rights. I think it was a very sad irony that that sort of situation exists.

As this story unfolds and as the government digs itself deeper and deeper into a situation that it seems unable to recover from, one of the most disappointing things has been to see the role that the Prime Minister has taken on. We had the first joke last November, a totally inappropriate comment. The Prime Minister did not learn from that. He went on to a second and a third joke. Even in the House we have now heard comments about baseball bats and water cannons. It really is a very serious matter and it is something that Canadians do not want to hear jokes about.

The Prime Minister continues to trivialize and make light of the very serious protest that these students undertook and their seriousness in trying to bring this complaint. They have had a complete lack of support from the government. That the government is doing its very best and spending a ton of money to undermine the process is something that really is very dishonourable in the House. It brings a great deal of shame on us.

I remember listening to Mr. Nelson Mandela in the House in September. It was a day when we remembered the honour that Canada had brought in the struggle to end apartheid. Yet very sadly it was also a day when we were in the midst of this crisis of a government that was unable to see what the right thing was in supporting these students and making sure we have a proper inquiry that is not undermined but will seriously get at the truth.

This motion today is very simple and straightforward. We would like to ask who on the government side will stand up and defend democracy and affirm that we are here in the House to represent the people of Canada and to defend democracy. It is not to protect a government when it has botched a job and it is not to defend a Prime Minister who is absolutely wrong and callous in his regard for people's human and legal rights.

The question is straightforward. Will the House agree and will Liberal members to have the courage to stand up and say that it is not too late to change a grievous wrong to those students and the people of Canada and to make sure that inquiry, limited as it is, will at least enable those students to get a fair shot at getting their case heard and having their complaints fairly heard? We have called for a full judicial inquiry. We ask the government members to have the courage to support this motion.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her remarks.

She said she visited some of the countries represented at the APEC summit and had seen the economic devastation that trade had brought to those countries.

It is unfortunate that she took the focus off what is a pretty broad consensus about the need for due process in these hearings. The vast majority of people who live in places like Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore would agree that while they are going through an enormous economic turmoil currently, their standard of living has increased exponentially over the last 20 years as a result of international trade. Many tens of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty because of the benefits of trade notwithstanding the current structural difficulties.

While I am sympathetic to the case for legal counsel for the students, the member painted a picture of them as completely altruistic, innocent students expressing their belief in democracy. We know that was certainly the case in many instances. In fact I have carried picket signs outside the Chinese embassy protesting the presence of Jiang Zemin. I joined many people in that moral outrage about human rights abuses.

Surely the member would admit that we should not prejudge the inquiry and that there were some students or even non-students who were members of groups such as the International Socialist Workers Party and other radical organizations who were clearly there to disrupt the summit, posing a security threat and tearing down a security wall separating them from heads of states.

Surely the member would recognize a balanced perspective here, that while there were some legitimate protesters there may also have been at the same time some people who unduly provoked the police.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in reply to the first part of the member's comments and question in terms of my visit to Indonesia and Thailand, I raised that because it is important for us to understand what it was that the students and a very diverse part of the community in Vancouver and across Canada were protesting and voicing their concern about in terms of the APEC gathering.

Having just come back from those countries I can tell the hon. member it is simply untrue that there are millions of people who were lifted out of poverty as a result of trade liberalization. Quite the contrary is true. Those economies are now in complete shatters. There are people who are facing unemployment, hunger and devastation.

I believe these issues are related. We have to understand that there was huge concern in Canada about Canada's role in promoting this kind of unfettered market force and movement of capital that are basically put ahead of what are urgent and human needs.

On the point about there being some people who did something wrong and that maybe some of the students were protesting in a way that was acceptable but others were not and broke the law, I am not aware of instances where there were any protesters who broke the law or in any way threatened the security of the visiting leaders.

One of the disgusting things about the APEC summit is that the word security was used as a cover to basically deny people the right to protest in a democratic and open society. Whether it is the socialist workers party or students at UBC or anti-poverty activists in my own riding of Vancouver East, people were exercising their democratic rights.

Frankly I am surprised to hear the member from the Reform Party raise that as though somehow those actions were not in order. They in no way threatened the security of the leaders or the summit itself. To state that is simply false.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

The motion before us introduced by the NDP and then a few minutes later amended by another NDP member suggests to me that it was a motion not introduced in earnest to come to the very fundamental issue before us.

During debate, for example, by the mover of the motion and by the next speaker from the NDP, about 75% or 80% of their debate was spent on making allegations about the facts of the case. What is curious is that out of all those allegations the speakers then concluded that their allegations were true.

Where is the fairness in the process if that is the process we were to follow? We cannot make allegations and at the same time be judge and jury. I question the agenda of the party that introduced the motion.

The other opposition members during debate alluded that this thing was done at the behest of the Prime Minister. Again it was another allegation. Then they concluded that it was a fact. Making conclusions before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission has had a chance to thoroughly, carefully and thoughtfully consider the allegations is a process we should not pursue.

The motion does not tell us by how much we should fund the students, at what rate of legal fees per hour and for how long? No limits were mentioned. I do not think the member who introduced the motion was very serious about it.

May I remind all members that when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission was established by the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada did not in its wisdom at the time provide for a particular mechanism of funding citizens who lodge complaints against the RCMP. Why was it that those opposition members, particularly the member who introduced the motion, a veteran of parliament, did not in his wisdom at the time introduce an amendment when the act was being debated in the House 12 years ago? Why all of a sudden now? Should we call this political opportunism? I will leave it to the judgment of the people.

Perhaps we should remind ourselves that this commission is entrusted in section 46, subsection (2) which states:

All proceedings before a board shall be dealt with by the board as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.

There is no formality needed as in a court of law. We do not have to know the specific and very delicate rules of evidence. We do not have to know the rules of procedures of the commission. The commission is a friend of the Canadian citizenry at large.

When we have allegations during debate of the information before the Canadian public, for the opposition to conclude that these allegations are conclusions of fact when they are only allegations in a very real sense is trying to impugn not only the credibility, the integrity and the honour of the people affected but the integrity of the commission itself.

I have faith in the commission. I once served on the Winnipeg Police Commission for three years before I entered parliament. I have appeared before quasi-judicial bodies, before the labour board and the Winnipeg compensation board although it is under provincial jurisdiction. I have appeared before the UI board. I have appeared before the UI referee presided by Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court of Canada serving as an umpire. I have appeared before the CPP tribunal as a member of parliament. I have appeared before the immigration appeal board.

When one appears before quasi-judicial bodies the tribunal members are friends of the citizens at large. They are truly there to serve the cause of justice and truth. I can say in all modesty that in my three years with the Winnipeg Police Commission before I entered this hallowed House I pursued the sense of justice and the search for truth. I did not need the argument of lawyers before me.

Let me remind hon. members that during those hearings when complaints were against the government, the government side was represented by lawyers. We had cases which we won for citizens at large and we had cases where we found the complaints were groundless. That is the mandate of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

The report issued in June 1998 states that the commission, referring to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, acts in the public interest both to protect human rights and to protect RCMP officers from groundless accusations of improper conduct. In other words what we have here is that the commission will see to it that the rights of the accused will be balanced with the rights of the complainant.

Since these students are the complainants in this instance they can articulate their intuition. They can articulate their thoughts. They can articulate their arguments. They can present their facts, and the commission will be there to guide them in that direction.

The same report states on page 2 that the commission should not be fettered by the kind of precise rules that govern criminal and civil trials. This is not about a civil trial. It is not about a criminal proceeding. It also states that timeliness and efficiency contribute to the credibility of our response, in other words of the commission's response to public complaints. We have here a process, a body created by the House of Parliament, to see to it that we search for the truth and that we establish and secure justice for all.

What we have heard so far is a rush by opposition members to score some political points. I do not blame them because they are in opposition and that is part of our parliamentary system. I do not blame them at all for raising the issue, but let us see the perspective in totality. I can assure members that the commission is truly an independent commission.

The commission counsel stated on several occasions that all efforts would be made to ensure that all relevant evidence would be heard by the panel and that the participants would be seen through the evidence, would be taken to the evidence and would be asked about it in advance and that they would have a say again after cross-examination of witnesses.

The chair of the public complaints commission says that it will follow the evidence where it leads and that the scope of the investigation will be broad.

Just in case members have some doubts that the scope of the investigation will be broad and in case it has missed the attention of members, page 10 of the June 1998 report states that after the demonstrations at the University of British Columbia during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference in November 199 the commission received a large number of complaints about the conduct of certain RCMP officers who were involved in those events and as a consequence has established this public inquiry.

I am convinced we will have the truth and we will have justice. A Winnipeg editorial of October 15, 1998 states that the complainants were trying to use the inquiry to humiliate the Prime Minister and to pursue a purely political agenda in opposition to aspects of Canadian foreign policy, that the federal government is being asked to pay for the lawyer as long as the inquiry continues, and that it would be perfectly reasonable to make the complainants pay their own lawyer to defend their own private interests in the process they have initiated.

I equally wish that we have the conclusion of the inquiry, but let us not prejudge its proceedings. Let us wait for the results. Let us wait for the recommendations and then and only thereafter can we truly make our fair comments.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of the government that the whole process surrounding APEC has been unfair. There were $57 million funded for APEC and $200,000 for the people's summit. Here we have at least seven state funded lawyers lined up against the students with no lawyers.

I listened to the solicitor general say that this process was meant to be fair, informal and accessible to the general public and that a legal representation would not necessarily be needed. However, in a situation where the students have no legal representation and are faced with seven lawyers, it is no longer accessible, equal or fair. I would like to see the government make it a fair process.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear any question but I did hear comments and I would like to respond to them.

I have noted that the RCMP receives on average 1,000 complaints a year. If we would follow the formula of funding that is being implied in this case, we ought to be funding to the tune of about $6 million.

Where were opposition members with respect to the citizens who appeared before other quasi-judicial tribunals? Where were they? Were citizens aggrieved about the CPP handicapped by not having a lawyer? How about the citizen who appeared before the UI board? How about the citizen who appeared before the veterans board?

When I hear opposition members speak only to this issue on behalf of citizens I question the integrity of their agenda.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. The students were merely exercizing the civil right to express disagreement, which has been recognized for as long as there has been a Canada, a Quebec, a New France.

This was all planned ahead of time. Along with the big cans of pepper spray came out wet towels to wipe off one's eyes. On the one hand, the government plans to invest more than $2 billion in millennium scholarships for our young people in Canada and Quebec. Nothing is too good for our youth to ring in the new millennium.

On the other hand, as the end of this millennium nears, actions are being taken here, in Canada, that were unheard of in a democracy, actions that only Russia, Iraq or Iran would have taken. And they are refusing to provide a few million dollars so that recognized lawyers can be hired for the students. This is scandalous, from a government that claims to be democratic and to respect civil rights.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would readily spend any extra money we have and would suggest that the government spend it on scholarships for students.

The situation here is not as painted by the opposition. We will be able to arrive at the truth. We will be able to get the facts because we have a public body, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, which has a solid record of 12 years of credibility and integrity in producing results. The commission had found in the past some isolated cases of excessive use of force. I have faith in this body being able to arrive at the truth.

It does not need any counsel because those cases in the past did not have legal counsel. On those 1,000 cases every year, where were opposition members? Did they ask for funding for those 1,000 citizens every year? Where were they?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the time allotted to me to lay out some basic facts about the public complaints commission and its mandate.

In the debate swirling around the APEC issue some very basic facts have been lost which do point to a reasonable and earnest government effort to have all the facts come out.

We have to begin with the creation of the public complaints commission by parliament in 1988. It was deliberately designed as a civilian and independent organization, not part of the RCMP. It reports to parliament through the solicitor general although I remain at arm's length. In fact I tabled the commission's most recent annual report which shows that each year Canadians make approximately 1,000 complaints against the RCMP of which about 300 a year are the subject of independent investigations.

The public complaints commission was created by parliament in 1988 to act in the public interest when complaints are lodged against the RCMP. I stress the words act in the public interest. These are extremely important words because they go to the heart of the raison d'être of the commission. The commission is there to act for Canadians. The commission has very competent members and they have always conducted themselves with impartiality and integrity.

There is no doubt in the government's mind that the commission panel made up of very talented and skilled members can get to the bottom of the issue to the satisfaction of Canadians. Why are there legal counsel at the hearings? First, they represent RCMP members who can face consequences to their careers because of the hearings. They are compelled to attend and testify and anything they say can be used against them in the future. The complainants face no such consequences.

Moreover, the government counsel present are there to assist the panel, helping it to deal with the considerable documentation related to APEC in a timely and efficient manner. Finally, one should remember that the counsel will represent the interest of the government keeping in mind that a class action suit has been brought on behalf of some of the complainants.

The panel certainly has the resources to carry out its mandate in support of the special public interest hearing. The three able panellists are served by a chief counsel, two assistant counsel and three investigators who have assiduously to comb through the documents, help prepare the panel and direct the examination of witnesses in a fair and responsible manner in search of the facts. It is this apparatus that serves the public interest in getting to the bottom of the issue, and get to the bottom of the issue it will.

Members of this team have been hard at work for some months now in preparation for these hearings. They have an impressive number and variety of witness to ensure all sides of the story are examined. Witness from the RCMP, the complainants including the University of British Columbia, and from the government will all be examined in an exhaustive search for the truth.

As I have said, the government has provided $650,000 in additional funding to ensure the commission can undertake the hearings properly and that the government will continue to fund the panel. What we need here is to have everyone give the hearing process a chance to work. The commission panel has begun. Let it carry on.

This is not to be an adversarial hearing. It is not a court of law. It is a hearing in the public interest not governed by the precise rules that govern criminal and civil trials. This relative informality is the great thing about the process under the public complaints commission.

Parliament deliberately did not intend for the public complaints commission panel process to be a criminal court. It is a fact finding body. All the issues raised by the complainants will be dealt with by the hearing. Most important, the commission and the panel have emphasized in no uncertain terms that witnesses will be treated fairly and with dignity. The panel has the specific authority and mandate to see to it that all parties are treated fairly. I think that has been well demonstrated so far.

Over the course of its existence the public complaints commission has distinguished itself and the government has confidence in this process, if only others would stop undermining it through excessive rhetoric and prejudgment. It has an international reputation for dealing with complaints seriously and effectively. It is a made in Canada model for giving Canadians an arm's length, independent method of examining their complaints.

It is obviously the government's view that the lawyers for the complainants should not be funded by taxpayers. I do not think that the members opposite have a full appreciation of the arguments outlined in my letter to the public complaints panel on October 16. I would like now to revisit some of these arguments to provide some substance to the debate. In this letter I wrote:

As I stated in my earlier letter, the PCC was established in 1988 by parliament to represent the public interest in relation to complaints by the public against the RCMP. Since then, the PCC has distinguished itself by treating members of the public appearing before it with respect and fairness as well as dealing effectively with complaints brought before it.

The government believes the panel's work is important and has expressed public confidence for the process on a number of occasions.

It also believes that the panel, with the assistance of commission counsel, has the necessary authority and means to carry out its mandate with integrity. As a result, the government endorses the view expressed in your letter that all parties appearing before the panel will be treated with dignity and fairness.

Finally, the government is of the view that the panel can address all the complaints before it in an open and thorough manner without the need for the government to provide funding for legal counsel to complainants.

As you know, further to the commission's request, the government recently provided the PCC with additional resources in the amount of $650,000 to support the panel's work. The government will continue to provide the commission with the necessary means to complete its inquiry.

For all the reasons stated above, the government believes that the panel continues to enjoy the full confidence of Canadians and we await your findings and recommendations.

If hon. members would step back a minute and reflect, they would see that they are indeed taking a very short term view of the issue that only serves to undermine an institution and a process that is tailor made to deal with the issue at hand.

I believe I am right in my decision. It is the right decision in terms of the proper governance of our institutions in Canada. It is the right decision in terms of not having an adverse impact on several other government departments and agencies.

Let us let them do their work.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the solicitor general. Let me say no one has done more, unfortunately, to undermine the commission than the solicitor general himself with his comments on the possible outcome of the commission and then his failure to fund.

I want to ask the minister a very important question about the issue of funding. The Federal Court of Canada has said that the commission does not have the authority to extend funds to the student complainants. It was very clear on that. It quoted from section 45 of the RCMP Act.

The solicitor general has given money, $650,000. Does the commission in his view have the authority to use that $650,000 or the additional fund that he is talking about for legal aid for the student complainants at the APEC inquiry? Does it have the authority, according to his understanding as the solicitor general responsible for this act, to use those funds in that way? Yes or no.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the federal court has been quite clear on that. The important feature here is the fact that the counsel to the commission is in a position to facilitate the exercise.

We need to keep in mind in this whole debate the fact that the complaints commission was established very specifically to allow Canadians the opportunity in an informal way to have access to a process that was not intimidating and that would encourage them to come forward. I think that is exactly the way it was structured and is the reason the additional funds were made available to the commission and would be used by the counsel to the commission to facilitate the exercise.

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

Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General has not answered the question. I will be brief. He says he has confidence in the process and the commission, which is extremely credible. So why is he rejecting the request made twice by the commission that he provide help for the complainants in this matter? Twice now the Solicitor General has refused to pay. In this particular case, the complaint is special.

Here again, I repeat: $650,000 more for the commission. This has never happened since the commission's inception. Twice the commission has asked the Solicitor General to pay for the students. The federal court has spoken. A slew of lawyers is being paid at huge cost. I hope the Solicitor General will tell us how much that costs, especially the travel back and forth between Ottawa and Vancouver. Why is the Solicitor General refusing to help the complainants?

Is the Prime Minister telling him what to do or is the Solicitor General big enough to say “Yes, I will help the complainants?”

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I made the decision last Thursday and communicated it to the panel last Friday.

It was a very considered decision, one that included consideration of the large numbers of wards and tribunals, not just with the federal government but with the provincial governments as well which might be affected by the precedent that would be set.

It was my judgment that the best way to allow the complainants to exercise the opportunity to lay a complaint in this case and to do it in a way that could be done in the future was to recognize the need for additional funds to deal with this particular case and to make those funds available to counsel. I was assured in the letter of request from the panel members that they believed the process could go ahead fairly and with dignity for the complainants.

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

Madam Speaker, the solicitor general is in the unique position to be able to answer my colleague's question from Burnaby about the $650,000 given to the commission.

Is it his view that the commission can give staff, legal help, support for the complainants, independent of Mr. Considine—

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Why independent?

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

Because they require independence in order to get the job done.

In his judgment can the commission use some of the $650,000 for legal assistance for the students? We need a simple yes or no.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the federal court has spoken on the authority of the counsel.

The reality is that the commission counsel exists specifically to assist the complainants. Having additional revenues available, which is our decision, makes it easier for the commission counsel to do his work and be more easily facilitated.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the House for unanimous consent, because of the importance of this particular issue, to extend the questions and comments portion of the debate at this time.