House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was care.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by greeting my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, who have decided to oppose this motion today. In my opinion, it is not easy for them to say—
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I have the support of the Bloc whip. I wanted therefore to salute the Bloc for opposing the motion and say that it was not easy for them to do so and that it is not really easy for us, either.
The basic intent of the motion, if we were to take it on its surface, although there may be some other agenda here, is that if we would be willing to support, and then the “howevers” come. With regard to expressing our disgust for the elements around the scandal that has plagued the government now for a number of years, this is an opportunity for us to be able to say that.
As with the Bloc, the NDP is confronted with the law of this land, with due process, with the civil liberties and the civil rights of the witnesses and the parties that have come before the Gomery commission. Because of those things, we, like the Bloc, are not able to support the motion. If the mover and the Conservative Party were prepared to be more reasonable we think there may be ways of amending the motion that would draw the support of both ourselves and the Bloc.
I would urge the mover and the Conservative Party to consider the suggestions that we have made so that at least the opposition parties in this House can express our disgust with regard to the elements of this scandal that have plagued the government for some time.
I would like to touch on some of the specific concerns we have. The first concern is the fact that the motion makes some assumptions about the conduct of the inquiry by Mr. Justice Gomery that are probably not valid.
Justice Gomery, in his opening statement, made it very clear that he understood the scope that the federal Inquiries Act gave him. He understood the limitations that were placed on him by previous decisions, most notably the decision in the tainted blood scandal. It was a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997. It has been followed repeatedly by other inquiries, both federally and provincially, that have taken place since 1997. It clearly sets out what the role is of Mr. Justice Gomery and any other commissioner conducting an inquiry under the Inquiries Act.
The motion that we have before the House today would in effect violate, to some significant degree, the protections that were established under that case. I believe there are ways around it if the motion could be amended.
Coming back to Mr. Justice Gomery's opening statement when he started the inquiry, he made it very clear that he knows he has the ability on the finding of fact to make recommendations that will point fingers, if I can put it in a very broad sense, at individuals or groups of individuals. I believe Mr. Justice Gomery recognizes his limitations in this regard.
The Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear that the commissioner, under the Inquiries Act, was not to make findings of criminal culpability and that he should avoid doing that. He also should not use specific language that would make findings of civil liability.
The Supreme Court went beyond that. I think this is really important and perhaps the Conservative member who moved this motion and the Conservative Party more generally could take some appreciation of it. The Supreme Court of Canada went on to say that not only should one avoid making findings of “criminal culpability or civil liability“, but if there is in one's findings a public perception that one has done that, one should avoid doing that also.
That is a very difficult criteria and it is one that Mr. Justice Gomery and any other commissioner has to meet. The wording was quite explicit in that decision and the decision is not one people can play with. We cannot slide it this way or that way and get around it. It is there as an absolute barrier, it seems to me, to what Mr. Justice Gomery can do in terms of his recommendations and his findings of fact.
Unfortunately, the motion that is before the House today from the Conservative Party would call on Justice Gomery to make those specific types of findings, which the Supreme Court of Canada has prohibited him from doing.
Given our rules of procedure, it may be possible for the mover of the motion, obviously with the support of his caucus, to make the necessary amendments. We cannot move a formal amendment but we are suggesting that he and his party consider that the recommendations that we are making to Mr. Justice Gomery at this point take into account the Supreme Court of Canada decision and the rules and guidelines that have flowed from it. Obviously I cannot speak for the Bloc Québécois or the Liberals but on behalf of my party I would say that if he is prepared to do that we would be prepared to support, with out vote in the House tomorrow, that type of motion.
If that motion were moved it would give us the opportunity to say to Mr. Justice Gomery that we are looking to him to be as clear as possible in his decision making and in his recommendations and it would give us the opportunity to say to the government that we expect it to then implement those recommendations to their fullest degree.
I want to deviate for a moment and talk about some newspaper and media reports that we had over the weekend suggesting that today's motion may have another agenda. I do not want to suggest that it is the agenda of the mover because I do not know that. I believe he is well-intentioned in this. However I believe there are some members of the Conservative Party who see this motion as a mechanism to be used in some future election or between now and the next election as an attack on us as being too closely associated with the Liberal Party.
The offer I have made here on the floor on behalf of my party is sincere. We are not playing any games with this. We are very much looking to add additional weight to the expression of disgust from this chamber about the conduct that went on around ad scam. We look forward to that opportunity.
If one of the agendas of the motion is to tar us as being too closely associated with the Liberals, then that is an improper strategy and tactic on the part of the Conservatives. They should re-think why they are moving the motion today. Opposition days have a proud tradition of raising issues of importance to this country and allowing us to debate those issues from all perspectives.
However if today's motion is being used for purely partisan political purposes as an attempt to embarrass our party and members of our caucus in some future election or between now and the next election, then that is not proper and it is not in the best tradition of the House. If that is their motivation, I would ask those members to reconsider.
I would like to return to the motion itself and point out some of the risks involved if we proceed with it and if the government passes the mandate on to Mr. Justice Gomery with this wording and Mr. Justice Gomery follows it.
Before I was elected to the House of Commons I was a practising lawyer for many years. If I had seen this appear as the mandate at this period of time in the course of this inquiry I would be in the federal court almost immediately moving a motion to strike down the entire work of the inquiry up to this point on behalf of my client who would be severely prejudiced. I would be able to make those arguments. Based on the Supreme Court of Canada decision and several others that have come both before and since then, I would fully expect to be successful in bringing Mr. Justice Gomery's inquiry to an absolute halt and would fully expect to receive an order that the inquiry would have to commence all over again.
I am not being extremist in that analysis. I think that just about any lawyer who has practised in the courts of this land and in front of tribunals would agree with that assessment, because what it does is say to the individual witnesses and parties who have participated in that inquiry up to this point, “Sorry about that, but the rules have just been changed”.
That is greatly offensive to our common law tradition, our respect for due process and our respect for the charter rights we have in this country. One does not change the rules of the game. One does not change the rules of procedure. One does not at the end of the process change the conduct that, in this case, the judicial officer is required to follow. One sets out the mandate at the beginning. The commissioner, in this case Justice Gomery, follows that mandate. One does not change it at the end of the process.
We expect that we are probably only a week to two weeks away from finishing the testimony. To try justify changing the mandate at this point, in the clear way that is being attempted here, is just totally offensive to our jurisdictional and juridical principles in this country, which we have had for a long time, even preceding the rights that were enshrined in the charter back in 1982. That is what would happen.
It is actually ironic that this motion is coming before the House today, because yesterday the former prime minister's lawyers withdrew on his behalf their objection to Mr. Justice Gomery. Within the court process, it was the last outstanding manoeuvre, if I can put it that way, that might have either brought Mr. Justice Gomery's inquiry to a halt or affected it in some significant way in terms of the findings he could have made.
That objection has now been withdrawn. If we were to proceed with this motion, we would be opening this door all over again. Applications could come from the various lawyers who are already there representing parties. Other witnesses could bring lawyers forward and say, “Wait a minute. I did not understand I was exposed to this risk. I did not get the opportunity to make full comment and make a full presentation. I want to have that opportunity”.
The list of potential attacks on the commissioner and on the inquiry is very long. There are parties to this that we in this House probably cannot even contemplate at this point, but certainly there are 50 to 100 of the potential witnesses and parties, from what I can see, who would be negatively or potentially negatively impacted by this.
Let us remember, going back to that Supreme Court of Canada decision, that the court was very clear. It did not want inquiries to expose, even in the public perception, the right of the commissioner to make these kind of determinations that this motion would draw us to.
It is a situation that we in the NDP are caught in. Again, as I said in my opening comments, the Bloc Québécois are caught in the same way. We have been deeply offended by everything that has gone on around the ad scam. We say that as individual members of Parliament, because this scandal taints all of us.
It is clear that this scandal was within the Liberal Party and within the Liberal administration, but the public does not see it quite that simply. The common phrase we hear is, “Well, you're all the same” . We get caught in it when something like this happens, so it is a personal offence. Even if we were to ignore the effect it has had on democracy in this country and on our international reputation, it is also a personal offence because we have all been wounded by this.
I do not think we can say in the House, perhaps even as clearly as we would like to, just how offended we are, but that is the reality of what we are confronted with. It makes it that much more difficult, then, to be forced to stand in the House and say, “I am sorry, but our party, the Bloc Québécois, cannot support the motion”. I am not entirely sure of its intent. There may be another agenda. If there is, that really is unfortunate.
Let me suggest that if we had the alternative, if we had a motion in the shape to which I am suggesting the Conservatives consider amending theirs, a motion which would recognize the limitations that the Supreme Court of Canada has placed on the role of the commissioner under the Inquiries Act, the debate could then focus more today on the scandal itself.
It could focus more on why we should be asking Mr. Justice Gomery to be as clear as he possibly can in making findings of fact, so that the public, Canadians from coast to coast, based on his report, could make a clear determination as to what happened and how we avoid it ever happening in the future. They would basically be able to reach an intelligent and informed decision in their own minds.
I do not think there is any doubt that in this country right now people have drawn a number of very clear conclusions. Some of them may not in fact be valid. Their anger toward the government of the day may at this point be overblown. Or it may in fact not be realistic and perhaps they should be angrier at the government.
In his report and the recommendations contained therein, Mr. Justice Gomery is going to play a key role if in fact his report is as broad and as clear as possible. The motion before us unfortunately has the major risk of undermining his ability to do that.
I do not want to put words into his mouth or draw up any decisions by him, but I would at least speculate that if Justice Gomery were faced with this mandate as the motion is worded now he would have serious reservations about his ability to carry through. He would be caught, as would anybody having a minimal understanding of our legal system. Particularly because of his experience, he would be caught between the Supreme Court of Canada saying that he could not do this and the House or this government saying we want him to do this. I have no way of knowing what in fact he would do at that point, but what I do know is that we should not put him in that position.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I do take exception to my colleague's suggestion that somehow all members of Parliament are besmirched by this scandal. What is besmirched by this scandal is our democracy, and of course as members of Parliament we care very deeply about the democratic traditions and the democratic values of honesty, responsibility and accountability that are so at risk in this whole mess of the sponsorship program.
I have two questions for my colleague. I am a little surprised when he argues so vociferously that rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game by the Parliament of Canada. It was his party that changed the rules of the budget in the middle of the game by making a deal to prop up the government in exchange for doing just that, for changing the budgetary rules in the middle of the game. I wonder how he explains the contradiction of his party changing those rules and yet somehow arguing that Parliament cannot make a change to rules in another aspect of the game.
The second thing I would like to ask him is to confirm the following. He said that Mr. Chrétien has now withdrawn his objection to Gomery, but I understand that this is simply a delay in his bringing objections forward. In fact, although he is not going to bring objections forward to Gomery at this time, it is open to him to reactivate those objections and bring them back before the court at any time down the road. It could be just before the report or it could be after the report. How can my colleague say that the objections have now been withdrawn and that roadblock is no longer there when in fact there has just been a delay and it is still very much open to Mr. Chrétien to bring forward objections to Gomery?
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what constituency the member lives in, but if she has not heard the saying that I have, which is that we are all tainted by this, she has a different constituency than I do, because that is in fact the reality.
With regard to the first question, it is an apples and oranges thing to suggest that the process we initiated to deal with issues of a financial nature in this country by incorporating them into a budget bill is somehow changing the rules. That is just not correct. It is quite acceptable to do this. Governments do it all the time, either around budget time or further on in the year. As for saying that addressing pressing issues in this country is somehow breaching the rules, I reject that.
With regard to her question on the tactics the former prime minister may be using, he has every right, as do all the parties and members of the public who may be affected by Mr. Justice Gomery's findings and recommendations, to challenge them subsequently. He has the right within the existing system to challenge Mr. Gomery in the final arguments as to whether Justice Gomery has demonstrated a bias toward him.
These are all standard rights. The member is a lawyer. She knows those standards. We are allowed to use due process and our procedural rights. In my opening comments I did not suggest that he had abandoned all of those rights, nor would I suggest to him that he do so. He has a right to protect himself, as do all members of this society.
The fact remains that it was a major development yesterday when he dropped that motion to have Mr. Justice Gomery disqualified because of bias. It was a step forward in terms of some certainty that we will get Mr. Justice Gomery's report in the relatively near future, that is, hopefully by the end of this year, so that the Canadian public will have the benefit of his findings and recommendations.
As for whether there are going to be other attempts, either by Mr. Chrétien or by other parties, there is nothing we can do about that, but the development yesterday was a positive one for Canadian people.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have now had the official positions from the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. The positions are the same, which is that this motion, if passed, would lead ultimately to the scrapping of the Gomery inquiry. That is the end result, based on the opinions of even Judge Gomery himself, of amending the terms of reference in the middle of a process. As the member just laid out, as a lawyer he would go immediately to court and say that after the fact there had been a change to the rules that protected him.
What is the ulterior motive or the motivation for this motion? The member started off by saying he has waited so long to have his opposition day, which has been delayed, and now he has come up with a motion that is basically counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the rule of law and due process, to “innocent until proven guilty”.
I want the member to confirm again, for the edification of the House and for those watching, that in his opinion this motion ultimately would lead to the quashing of the Gomery inquiry at great expense and disruption and that it may be in fact an irresponsible motion to have put before this place, because in fact it could pass. With a full moon in this place, that motion could pass, and it would be disastrous for Canada. That is my first item.
There is a second item that I want the member to comment on. The member said at the very end of his remarks that he wants the report to be factual in all aspects so that Canadians can reach an informed decision, if I am quoting him correctly. If the Gomery report is based on the rules of evidence and the Supreme Court guidelines with regard to the inquiry process, where there is not the proper cross-examination process that would otherwise be available in a criminal proceeding, how is it that the Gomery report could ever meet that standard so that Canadians could in fact make an informed decision? How can they make an informed decision if they do not have all the facts that a criminal investigation would have?
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, I touched on it in my speech that there were some media reports over the weekend that this motion was motivated by the Conservative Party to attack the NDP particularly in the western provinces and I guess to some degree in Quebec. If that is the agenda, it is regrettable.
For the last number of months, really since the last federal election, my party has been saying that we are here to make this Parliament work. We are prepared to be cooperative and to do whatever we can in that regard. We are not here to play games. If in fact that is the agenda, obviously it has failed as far as the province of Quebec is concerned since the Bloc has also seen its way through.
I fully congratulate the members of the Bloc for the stance they have taken. It would have been very easy for them to say that they are going to ignore the rule of law, the charter and due process and support the motion because they and their constituents are so angry at the Liberal government. I want to congratulate them with as much sincerity as possible that they took the more difficult position. In any event, if that was the agenda of the Conservative Party, at least in the province of Quebec it failed because of the principled position that the Bloc has taken.
With regard to members of the NDP being victims of voting against this motion in the western provinces, which was the other part of the news story, if that is the consequence, again we stand on principle. This motion is not an appropriate one. It is wrong as worded. We again would invite the Conservative Party to change the motion so that we could support it by reflecting the limitations to which Mr. Justice Gomery is bound by law.
With regard to the second question regarding an informed decision, there are a number of possibilities of the Canadian public wanting responses. It could be in some cases that some parties should be charged. Some parties already have been charged. Those trials are starting in October in some cases. Canadians may want money recovered so that civil liability should be pursued, including, as we have heard in the House from all three opposition parties, that the Liberal Party should be one of the parties to pay money back.
The third one is the political consequence. There is political liability. If Mr. Justice Gomery can make his report clear enough without making any determinations that one person should be charged criminally, another one should be sued, and politically the Liberals should be thrown out of government, he cannot do any of those things. However, he can in his finding of fact and recommendations help the Canadian public in reaching decisions in each one of those areas.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do not see quorum in the House.
And the count having been taken:
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
It took a few seconds to count everyone, but we have quorum.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara West.
Today we are debating a Conservative Party motion which reads:
That this House call on the Government to amend section (k) of the Gomery Commission's terms of reference to allow the Commissioner to name names and assign responsibility.
This motion comes out of remarks made by the Prime Minister on television to Canadians on April 21. The Prime Minister said in that televised message, “Only he”--Gomery--“can tell us what happened and who was responsible”. That is what the Prime Minister told Canadians, that only Gomery can tell us who was responsible for all the problems and the mismanagement, the corruption and the improper use of tax dollars in the sponsorship program.
Section (k) of Gomery's mandate reads as follows:
the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization--
That is the clear reading of Gomery's mandate. He cannot express any conclusion or recommendation regarding who is liable, whether it is a person or whether it is an organization. I would like to make it clear that Justice Gomery himself understands that he is not able to name names or assign responsibility. In fact in his opening statement he read section (k) which I have just read and then said:
--the Commission may not establish either criminal culpability or civil responsibility for sums of money lost or misspent...it does not have the capacity nor does it intend to do so.
That is what he said. It is very clear that although the Prime Minister told Canadians that only Gomery can tell us who is responsible for the organized activity that defrauded Canadian taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars, both a clear reading of his mandate and his own words of interpretation of his mandate make it very clear that Gomery is not able to tell us who is liable, who is responsible for what happened with the sponsorship program. I read again:
--without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization--
If only Gomery can tell us who is responsible but his mandate precludes him from telling us who is responsible, we have a problem. We are trying with this motion to fix the problem to in fact ensure that Mr. Justice Gomery, who has spent many months and a lot of money hearing a range of witnesses, can in fact at the end of the day tell us what the Prime Minister has said only Gomery can tell us: who is responsible.
In order for him to do that, we have to change the mandate. We have to get rid of the prohibition in section (k) that says he cannot express any conclusion or recommendation about who is responsible. Otherwise, what is the whole point of this? The Liberals and our friends in the NDP are saying that the rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game.
This is the Parliament of Canada. This is the highest authority in the land about laws, about procedure and about process. Of course Parliament can redirect Mr. Justice Gomery. The Liberals are so worried about the shaky ground they are on with this argument that they themselves have proposed to bring forward another motion tomorrow. They tried to do it today. They want to bring forward a motion which says that the House confirms that the commissioner has the authority to name names and assign responsibility.
I am not sure how the House could affirm that, given that the mandate says “without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding liability”, but somehow the Liberals want us to pass a motion tomorrow saying that he does have this. That is exactly what we are trying to say today, so I am not quite sure why there is the gamesmanship. Either Gomery has the right to name names and to assign responsibility, or as he himself says, he does not. Mr. Justice Gomery says that the commission may not establish either criminal culpability or civil responsibility. It does not have the capacity, nor does it intend to do so.
Something is far wrong here and we need to fix it. We have a very unusual situation where, for the very first time, it is the governing party itself that is being investigated, that is being accused of an organized plan and activities to defraud the taxpayer.
The suggestion by the government that somehow the Supreme Court says we cannot do this is nonsense. The Prime Minister of Canada has said that only Gomery can get to the bottom of this. In fact, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works have said over and over, “We will leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of this. We will get to the bottom of this. Gomery will get to the bottom of this”. Then we find out that Gomery cannot. He cannot, at the bottom of this, tell us who is responsible, not only who is responsible in a criminal sense, but who is responsible even in a civil sense. Gomery cannot do that. His mandate says he cannot do that and he says he cannot do that.
We are trying to fix it and keep the Prime Minister's promise to Canadians that Gomery will tell us what happened and who is responsible. All of a sudden there is a great outcry from the government and its friends in the NDP. We cannot tell Canadians who is responsible. Gomery cannot do that. We cannot have a motion that would allow him to do that. This is completely untenable.
We know that the Liberals are worried, because they are trying to bring forward another motion which is completely at odds with the mandate of Gomery, clause (k) and Gomery's own interpretation of his mandate. What is the motion that the Liberals are trying to put forward? Will it change the mandate or will it say that the mandate says something that it clearly does not? Why not just make it clear, as we have done in our motion today, that clause (k) of Gomery's mandate will be amended to allow him to name names and assign responsibility? Either it does or it does not and Parliament can either say it does or it does not.
There is a suggestion that somehow Mr. Justice Gomery would have a problem with this. That again is complete and utter nonsense. Mr. Justice Gomery has heard the evidence. Judge Gomery has looked at the tapes of the bank robbery. He knows the money is missing. He knows who took it and he knows who drove the getaway car, but his mandate says he cannot tell who grabbed the cash and who drove the getaway car. What we are saying is that is information he has and which he should be giving to Parliament.
I urge the House to support this motion. Let us give Canadians the full truth as they deserve.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is around the fact that we have now seen several months of testimony. We have spent millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer funds to fund the inquiry. We know for a fact that Canadians are very upset and concerned about the information that has come out of the Justice Gomery inquiry.
I have to qualify this by saying that I am no lawyer. However, what I heard earlier in the House was that there had been a Supreme Court decision that clearly set out the parameters for what was allowed in this type of inquiry and that commissioner responsibilities were clearly laid out.
The member for Windsor—Tecumseh talked about the fact that the motion would contravene what the Supreme Court had laid out. Could the member explain how the motion would be seen in the light of previous decisions that have been made by the Supreme Court?
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, first, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly is not tying the hands of Parliament in getting to the truth in a very serious matter of abuse of taxpayer funds. That was clearly not the intent of the Supreme Court decision.
Second, Parliament is supreme. Parliament itself makes the law. In this case the Prime Minister of Canada himself has told Canadians that only Gomery can decide, can tell us who is responsible for what has happened.
Third, the government itself in the motion it intends to introduce tomorrow, and tried to introduce today, has said that the House confirms the commissioner has authority to name names and assign responsibility.
I am sure the government would not be bringing forward a motion that would fly in the face of what the Supreme Court has said, and that is not the case. In fact, this is a bogus argument, that somehow Mr. Justice Gomery cannot take all the information he has, all the money he has spent, all the time that has been spent and take the last step, the one the Prime Minister says only he can take, to tell Canadians who was responsible for what happened.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that we are all here today once again discussing the issue of Liberal fraud, Liberal bribery, Liberal corruption, Liberal theft and overall Liberal mismanagement.
We hear today Liberals trying to find ways to block the public from finding out who was to blame for all this Liberal theft and Liberal bribery.
As it relates to the subject of Liberal fraud, I want to ask the member a question about this secret clause (k) that was put into the terms of reference. The hon. member has pointed out that there is no reason why Justice Gomery should not be able to point his finger at those who are guilty and expose those who partook in the Liberal fraud.
However, we heard from the minister across the way who told us that Justice Gomery already had that right. Moments later he said that if we were to give him that right, we would derail the entire process that had been set in place for the Gomery inquiry.
I see a contradiction. If Gomery already has the right to point fingers with respect to Liberal fraud and Liberal corruption, as the minister pointed out, then why would our motion in any way inhibit Mr. Justice Gomery's work? If our motion merely restates a right that the minister claims Gomery already has, then he should not see it as any obstruction. It should merely be a reinforcement of the status quo.
Does the hon. member agree that there is a contradiction?
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. Either Gomery has the right and the freedom under his mandate to tell Canadians who is responsible or he does not. I simply point out the clear wording of the mandate that says he does not have the freedom to do that. I also point to his own words that say:
--the Commission may not establish either criminal culpability or civil responsibility for sums of money lost or misspent...
We want to ensure that not only Mr. Justice Gomery but the entire country is very clear that we can expect Mr. Justice Gomery to assign responsibility for what happened and to tell us who should be held responsible and accountable for this betrayal of the values of our democracy.
We are trying in our motion to make that very clear. I cannot for the life of me figure out why every parliamentarian in this House would not vote for this kind of clarity and certainty for Canadian citizens. The Prime Minister himself promised that. Yet the government is prepared to leave doubt on the matter and that is unacceptable.
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion which reads:
That this House call on the Government to amend section (k) of the Gomery Commission's terms of reference to allow the Commissioner to name names and assign responsibility.
Clause (k) of the Gomery commission terms of reference reads as follows:
the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;
As a result of clause (k), Justice Gomery is expressly forbidden to name any person or organization as being responsible for part of the sponsorship scandal. While it is important for Justice Gomery to file his report, the Canadian people have already heard first hand the abuse of the program and the outright thievery by the Liberal Party.
Let me take a few moments to remind my colleagues and all Canadians of the facts of the sponsorship scandal.
It is well documented that the Prime Minister has promised Canadians he would get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. It is also well documented that the Prime Minister claims he had no knowledge whatsoever of any wrongdoing. We continually find through various testimony and documentation that this is simply not the case.
Recently the Prime Minister made a pathetic televised plea to Canadians that it was necessary to have Justice Gomery issue his report before an election. This is just another example of dithering and flip-flopping. One example of this was when he called the last federal election for June 2004.
While he said that he was the one who set up the Gomery inquiry, it was also he who took the sponsorship file out of the hands of the public accounts committee. It was he who prorogued the House. Why did he do that?
He ignored the parliamentary process in allowing the public accounts committee to examine all witnesses and release its findings on the sponsorship scandal. He called a snap election before Justice Gomery could ever hear from a witness, let alone create a report for Canadians to know the truth. He told Canadians that those who were involved in stealing their hard earned tax dollars would be held responsible.
The reality of this is that it was the Prime Minister who handcuffed Justice Gomery before his inquiry even began.
Skeptical Canadians only gave the Prime Minister a minority government with which to work. As a result, he was forced to follow through on his commitment to allow Justice Gomery and the sponsorship inquiry to continue. What he strategically omitted from the inquiry's mandate was that Justice Gomery had no ability to point the finger and assign blame.
By including clause (k), the Prime Minister is not allowing Justice Gomery to name names in his final report. This will deny Canadians everything the Prime Minister has promised. Another Liberal promise made, another Liberal promise broken.
This is the worst scandal in Canadian history, but it is not a Canadian scandal or a Quebec scandal. It is a Liberal scandal. Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was misappropriated, laundered and mysteriously ended up in Liberal pockets. Even worse, it is Liberal thievery that has strengthened separatist sentiments in Quebec.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide and is sincere about getting to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal, he should have no problem allowing Justice Gomery to name the individuals who are responsible. If the Prime Minister's track record of breaking promises holds true, then I would doubt his sincerity.
Since this sponsorship scandal began, week after week, month after month, we have been continually shocked by the depth of Liberal corruption. Just last week we learned from a forensic audit, performed at the request of Justice Gomery, of yet another $100 million that was funnelled through the sponsorship program. That makes 350 million questionable dollars so far spent by the Liberal government, not to mention millions more on an inquiry that will be able to do nothing more than state the obvious.
Money was stolen from Canadians and this money ended up in the pockets of the Liberal Party and its friends. We know that a separate fund has been set up for $750,000. However, we also realize, through sworn testimony in recent weeks, that number could be as high as $2.5 million and continuing to grow.
Now we find out that the Prime Minister finds it necessary to use another million dollars and counting of taxpayer money for his Gomery war room. The Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe the scandal has nothing to do with the current Liberal government. Testimony states otherwise.
In June 1999 the current Prime Minister's Office called the sponsorship program to lobby for a specific firm. Former public works minister and the man in charge of the sponsorship program, Alfonso Gagliano, claimed that the current Prime Minister was fully aware of the sponsorship program.
The man charged with issuing the sponsorship contracts, Chuck Guité, said that the current Prime Minister intervened in the contracting process. Claude Boulay, a man in the centre of the sponsorship scandal, detailed his relationship with the Prime Minister. Mr. Boulay's wife, Diane Deslauriers, the queen of Liberal fundraising in Quebec, also outlined her relationship with the current Prime Minister.
Alain Renaud has stated under oath that the Prime Minister's assistant lobbied for Groupaction to receive sponsorship money. Jean Brault has admitted to funnelling $1.1 million to the Liberal Party. He has also admitted to having campaign workers on his payroll to disguise their source of income.
The director general of the Liberal Party in Quebec, Benoît Corbeil, has confirmed that he received money from Jean Brault to pay campaign workers during the 2000 election. Daniel Dezainde admitted that Mr. Gagliano referred him to Joe Morselli and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jean-Marc Bard, for the financial needs of the party. Jacques Corriveau admitted to receiving about $8 million in commission on sponsorship projects for little or no work. The testimony goes on and on.
However, this testimony, along with many more facts, would be absolutely worthless if Justice Gomery's mandate is not expanded. If this is the case, then why, under pressure, did the Prime Minister create a trust fund to repay stolen money? The Prime Minister has already protected his interest by not letting the Gomery inquiry investigate public opinion research.
In a recent public accounts committee, when I questioned a Liberal strategist and former chief of staff to the Minister of Public Works, Warren Kinsella, along with Allan Cutler, the whistleblower in this sponsorship scandal, they confirmed that the Prime Minister was privy to information of contract fixing to a firm he has close ties to, Earnscliffe. This would never be revealed at the Gomery inquiry because the mandate conveniently excluded its ability to investigate public opinion research contracts. However, the Auditor General agreed that public opinion research contracting had serious flaws.
Just last week, the findings of the forensic audit shed light on the underhanded procurement of public opinion contracts. This is all information that will never be found in Justice Gomery's final report because the Prime Minister does not want it there. This is not what the Prime Minister promised Canadians when he created the Gomery inquiry.This is not what he continues to promise Canadians. The Prime Minister's promises are nothing more than empty words.
On a daily basis, the Prime Minister or his minions stand in this House and claim that Canadians need all the facts of the Gomery inquiry before they pass judgment. Yet, they will not allow Justice Gomery to lay blame where it belongs. Let us give Canadians a chance to know all the facts, not just the ones the Prime Minister is comfortable with.
The real injustice would be not allowing Canadians to know who stole their money, who let this happen, and who turned a blind eye to it. That is why this motion must pass.
Walt Lastewka LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member two questions and I welcome him back after boycotting and filibustering the House. I am concerned that there is misleading information coming from the hon. member. Justice Gomery himself has said:
I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it...whether there was political influence involved in the activities and, if so, by whom, to what purpose, and to what effect; whether any person or organization in the Government of Canada gained an advantage financially, politically or otherwise from the activities and, if so who, to what purpose, and to what effect;
Am I to understand from the hon. member across that he does not believe Mr. Justice Gomery and that he is in contradiction with Mr. Justice Gomery? And if he is, the second part of my question concerns clause (k) which was used in Ipperwash by the Conservative government of Ontario; in Walkerton by the Conservative government of Ontario; in the Stonechild case in Saskatchewan by the NDP government; and in the Grange inquiry in the death of infants at Sick Children's hospital by the Conservative government of Ontario.
Is he saying that those were wrong and he does not believe what Justice Gomery has said? I would ask him to answer those two questions.
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have only been a member for a year. One thing I have learned from the public accounts committee is that the devil is in the details.
A lot of what is said or what is not said, or what is written or not written is part of the reason why we get ourselves into this problem. I find it totally amazing that hundreds of millions of dollars could be misappropriated, misspent, stolen and sent to the Liberal Party. When we begin to question ministers and deputy ministers, there seems to be a huge problem with accountability, where the buck stops and who is responsible.
I certainly appreciate the thought process that the member mentions, that Mr. Justice Gomery should be able to draw conclusions. My concern is, that given the fact that the mandate says that he is not allowed without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding civil or criminal activity, what will happen should he have a chance to mention that? What will happen? Will someone cry foul? Will someone say “I can't believe that he wasn't allowed to do that. Let's rule him out of order”.
Certainly, I have seen enough during my short time in the House to understand that many times the devil is in the details in terms of what is allowed to be done or not allowed to be done.
My response to the hon. member for St. Catharines would be that if indeed Mr. Justice Gomery is allowed to name names, then this motion should not be a problem for people to support if that is really the case. It would then finalize what we suspect in terms of what he should be allowed to do under section (k).
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for representing his constituents and standing up against Liberal corruption, theft, bribery and extortion. I congratulate him for having done that.
My question pertains to one particular point the member raised in his speech. The member points out that if, as the Liberals suggest, Justice Gomery is really authorized to point fingers and name names, then this motion at worst ought to be considered redundant. It merely restates a right that the government claims Gomery already has. Would the member please explain that?
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is also one of the questions I have. Once again we have heard over and over how Mr. Justice Gomery is allowed to draw conclusions and how he can formulate his response. I guess the question is why is there so much opposition from the government and other opposition parties with regard to the reason why he should not be allowed to name names and assign responsibility?
If Justice Gomery is allowed to do that, then I am not sure why we are spending all this time debating this today, other than I would suspect, as I said before, there is some kind of back door way that the government would look at to get out of this as soon as he begins to name names and assign responsibility.
I would agree with my colleague. Why not pass this to strengthen and reinforce what the government is telling Canadians is something already within Justice Gomery's mandate? Why not let Justice Gomery name names? Why not let Justice Gomery assign responsibility if indeed the government already believes that this is what he can do?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the motion by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on section (k) of the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities.
The motion asks us to amend section (k) of the commission's terms of reference to allow the commissioner, Mr. Justice John Gomery, to name names and assign responsibility.
My aim today is to have members understand why the House should not call for the amendment of the terms of reference, but rather oppose it, for a number of reasons. The motion is inappropriate, without merit, redundant and prejudicial to the independence and conduct of the commission.
Need I point out that the government established a commission under part I of the Inquiries Act? In other words, it is a commission of inquiry and not a court. It is important to remember and stress this distinction.
Those watching the commission's proceedings on television, following the examinations and cross-examinations of countless witnesses, who know that the commissioner is a judge of the Quebec superior court, might, however conclude that a trial is going on.
Also, the confusion is due in part to the Inquiries Act, which gives the commissioners the same powers as judges. Under section 4, they have the power to summon witnesses, require them to give evidence and produce documents and other things. Under section 5, they have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.
However, no section of the Inquiries Act gives a commissioner of a commission of public inquiry the power to render a decision like a judge can. Instead, such commissioners play the role of investigators who counsel or assist the government on matters relating to the good governance of Canada or the administration of public affairs.
This is exactly the case with the Gomery commission. The government established it, and I quote:
—to investigate and report on questions raised ... by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada ... with regard to the sponsorship program and advertising activities of the Government of Canada ... and to make any recommendations that he considers advisable, based on the factual findings made ... to prevent mismanagement of sponsorship programs or advertising activities in the future.
We have stressed this numerous times: it is important to our government for the Gomery commission to continue its inquiry, make its recommendations and report back to us. We are committed to following up on the recommendations that Justice Gomery will present in his final report.
The government has acted in accordance with legislation passed by this Parliament, meaning the Inquiries Act, and with the relevant case law by not asking the Gomery commission to determine civil or criminal liability. That is why section (k) in the Gomery commission's terms of reference is not unique; it appears in the terms of reference of other commissions of inquiry.
Accordingly, section (k), it states:
the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;
However it does not preclude findings of misconduct against individuals pursuant to section 13 of the Inquiries Act under which the Gomery commission was established and it is this vital distinction that is not appreciated by the members of the opposition.
It is important to understand that a commission of inquiry is not a court or a tribunal. It does not follow the same laws of evidence or procedure that a court or tribunal would observe. No matter how carefully a commission of inquiry conducts its hearings, it cannot provide the evidentiary or procedural safeguards that prevail at a trial.
What we have observed at the Gomery commission is typical of commissions of inquiry: evidentiary rules have been relaxed and people have been summoned by subpoena to testify about their actions and the like. It is important to point out that a commission of inquiry, which sets out to make findings of criminal or civil liability against persons from whom it is compelled testimony, would infringe the fundamental rights of those persons and run a very high risk of being struck down by the courts as set forth in their judgments themselves.
For example, in Canada, A.G. v. Canada , Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:
A public inquiry was never intended to be used as a means of finding criminal or civil liability. No matter how carefully the inquiry hearings are conducted they cannot provide the evidentiary or procedural safeguards which prevail at a trial. Indeed, the very relaxation of the evidentiary rules which is so common to inquiries makes it readily apparent that findings of criminal or civil liability not only should not be made, they cannot be made.
I might add that collective or conclusory indictments of the opposition alleging Liberal fraud, Liberal theft and ongoing collective indictments, undermine the foundational principles of the rule of law, which are organized around principles of individual responsibility not collective indictments, which are organized around principles of presumption of innocence not predetermination of guilt and, most particularly, with regard to the Gomery commission, seek to short-circuit the Gomery commission before all the evidence has been heard, before all the arguments have been framed and before conclusions can be drawn and recommendations made by the Gomery commission itself.
What we should seek, opposition and government alike, is the opportunity for the Gomery commission to conclude its proceedings pursuant to the rule of law, make appropriate findings of fact and make appropriate recommendations which would be in the public interest to prevent any actions or misconduct from ever occurring again.
The Supreme Court of Canada held in Starr v. Houlden:
The inquiry process cannot be used to circumvent the federally prescribed criminal procedure. It is coercive and quite incompatible with our notion of justice in the investigation of a particular crime and the determination of actual or probable criminal or civil responsibility.
We must appreciate the distinct roles of commissions of inquiry and of courts and tribunals. Commissions of inquiry are not courts of law.This leads to a second reason why section (k) of the terms of reference should not be amended in the way proposed by the hon. member. Simply put, it would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and criminal proceedings which I trust the opposition has a shared commitment in seeing that those proceedings continue.
The hon. member's motion regrettably appears to have ignored this important aspect of section (k). As hon. members know, the government referred certain matters to the RCMP for investigation as did the Auditor General. The RCMP has laid charges against four individuals. We have every reason to believe that its investigations are continuing while the hearings of the commission of inquiry have been under way.
Section (k) of the terms of reference ensures that there are no negative consequences from the overlap between the criminal process and the Gomery commission of inquiry as mandated by the courts themselves. Indeed, the courts have discussed the overlap between commissions of inquiry and the criminal process.
In Nelles v. Grange, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that although the commissioner was directed to inquire into and report upon the means by which the children came to their deaths, the order in council specifically limited the commissioner by forbidding him to express any conclusion of law regarding matters of civil or criminal responsibility. It further stated that although the commissioner's findings and conclusions would not be binding, they would be considered by the public as a determination and could seriously prejudice any person named in subsequent proceedings, a principle that would be applicable to the present situation.
What the hon. member's motion would have this House do is potentially jeopardize current and future attempts to hold individuals accountable through ongoing and subsequent criminal prosecutions. In a word, this motion would undermine the rule of law, prejudice the independence of the Gomery commission and jeopardize further criminal prosecutions.
I will give the member a third reason why section (k) of the terms of reference must not be amended, namely that of procedural fairness. The motion would change the rules of the game for all parties to the proceedings of the Gomery commission. Most importantly, it would force the government to change the rules not at the start of hearings, but as the testimony is winding down.
With this motion, the hon. member is attempting, involuntarily, it might be said, to expose the commission and the government to legal risks. We could expect the parties to the proceedings to call it unfair, in terms of procedure, to amend the terms of reference of the commission after they have testified. We could also expect long judicial review proceedings to result.
I am sure the opposition MPs are just as impatient as the members on this side of the House to read the final report Justice Gomery is to table in December.
If members of the opposition anticipate this report as much as we do, then why would they want to propose an amendment that could have, even unintended, the effect of retarding, if not prejudicing, the continuation of the Gomery commission itself?
I want to be clear. The rules cannot be changed in such a way as to put procedural fairness at risk or delay the tabling of the Gomery commission report.
I am coming to the final reason MPs will want to reject this motion: the amendment could be redundant. In other words, to the extent that the motion aims simply to enable the Gomery commission to draw conclusions in determining whether there has been misconduct and who appears to be responsible for it, the commission is already charged with this duty.
On this point, I would remind members what Mr. Justice Gomery said in his opening statement on May 7, 2004:
I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it. Such findings will be the focus of the Inquiry only to the extent that they are necessary to carry out the mandate in the terms of reference.
The Supreme Court of Canada has used similar terms:
—the commissioner may have to assess and make findings as to the credibility of witnesses.
and:
—may draw appropriate conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who appears to be responsible for it.
The wording of section (k) of the Gomery commission's terms of reference complies with court guidelines, including those of the Supreme Court of Canada. On the one hand, the commissioner must not express any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization. The courts, moreover, have made it clear that such is not the role of a commission of inquiry. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent the commissioner from draw appropriate conclusions with respect to possible misconduct and to say who might be responsible for it. This is a very important distinction and one that is crucial to an understanding of the inquiry process.
In fact, in his opening statement, Justice Gomery made it clear that he understood that possibility was open to him:
Nevertheless, although the commission will not, and indeed cannot, express conclusions or recommendations in relation to the potential civil or criminal liability of anyone, it is part of its mandate to assess the evidence and to make findings of fact, such as findings with respect to the credibility of witnesses. According to s.13 of the Inquiries Act, which will be discussed in more detail later, I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it. Such findings will be the focus of the Inquiry only to the extent that they are necessary to carry out the mandate in the terms of reference.
I hardly need remind hon. members that the present government is the one that struck the Gomery commission in a desire to get to the bottom of the situation. We are anxious to find out what is in the report, which is slated to be released in December, and we are determined to implement its recommendations.
If the hon. member's motion to allow Justice Gomery to name names and assign responsibility would allow the commission to draw conclusions on civil or criminal responsibility, I cannot support this motion.
If I did, I would be ignoring the distinction between the role of commissions of inquiry and of courts. I would risk jeopardizing any attempt to hold those concerned criminally responsible for their actions. I would be changing the rules and that could be detrimental to procedural fairness and prevent the publication of the commission's report. I would be compromising the commission of inquiry itself and its ability to present its report, thereby creating the possibility that it would be abolished on the pretext that it is violating basic human rights. I would be ignoring the fact the Gomery inquiry already has the authority to express pertinent findings on whether there was wrongdoing and who seems to be responsible.
As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I must respect the rule of law. Any support for the motion would be given in total disregard for the decisions made by the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.
As I have mentioned, Justice Gomery already has the power to draw conclusions of misconduct against individuals under section 13 of the Inquiries Act. If this is the objective of the proposed amendment, it would be redundant. If, however, as I said, it seeks to assign civil or criminal liability against individuals, such an amendment could jeopardize the inquiry for the reasons already mentioned above. Either way, it is clear that the amendment should be opposed.
I invite all hon. members to vote against this motion since it is inappropriate, unnecessary, unfounded, redundant and detrimental to the commission.
Jim Gouk Conservative Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to not only the hon. minister who just spoke but other Liberals who have spoken on this motion throughout the day. They seem to keep raising the same theme. On the one hand, they are saying Gomery has the powers for which we are looking. On the other hand, they are saying that it will be wrong to give him the powers for which we are looking. Clearly, what it says is that Gomery cannot recommend charges be laid.
Let us say a bank has been robbed. Let us call it the Bank of Canada. Let us say it has been robbed a number of times. Sometimes it has been robbed by groups of people together. Then other smaller groups not connected with those and various individuals have all gone in at various times and robbed the bank.
Police officers do an investigation. They find some people they think are the culprits in one or more of the robberies. They say, “Here is who we think robbed the bank and we are charging them”. It is then up to the crown to prove or not prove their guilt. It is not the police to prove guilt. It is the police officers who recommend that charges be laid based on evidence they have gathered.
We are asking no more than that of Gomery, to be allowed to recommend charges be laid against certain individuals, companies and organizations which is specifically prohibited under the mandate given to him by the Liberal party.
I would like the hon. minister to tell us why Gomery should not be able to do the same thing that police officers do, without interfering in any criminal cases, and to recommend that charges be laid against specific individuals, groups of individuals or organizations and to do that without any interference. Also after some charges have been laid, police may find that more people are guilty and recommend charges be laid against them as well.
Why can Gomery not do the same thing? Of what is the Liberal Party afraid?
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it allows me the opportunity to make a crucial distinction which seems to be lost on those representing the motion. Justice Gomery, as the commissioner, already has the power to draw conclusions of misconduct against individuals under section 13 of the Inquiries Act pursuant to which, as I mentioned, the Gomery commission's mandate has been framed.
Therefore, he can draw in that sense conclusions of misconduct with respect to individuals. With regard to that, if that would be the objective of the motion, it would be redundant. In other words what is the point of amending a mandate to include a power that is already there? That would make no sense and would have prejudicial consequences in the manner in which it might retard or delay the ongoing process of the inquiry in terms of inviting legal challenges and the like because it would come at the end of this judicial Gomery process.
On the other hand, if the motion seeks to assign civil or criminal liability against individuals, such an amendment is prohibited by the rule of law among other things because it would jeopardize the very inquiry for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. It appears from what the member opposite has just said, in terms of recommending charges against individuals, that is what the motion seeks.
Therefore, the hon. member cannot have it both ways. If he wants to amend this statutory mandate of Justice Gomery with respect to allowing conclusions of misconduct to be drawn against individuals, that power is already there. The very proposing of an amendment is not only redundant but prejudicial.
If as it appears from his own remarks he is seeking to convert the Gomery commission into a police type power investigation, that is prohibited by the rule of law. The Gomery commission does not have the power to assign civil or criminal liability with respect to any individual. Should it seek to do what the hon. member just mentioned, it would derail the entire commission of inquiry. It would put an end to any criminal prosecutions. It would undermine all the shared purposes that we have in getting at the truth. Frankly, and I respect his intentions, it would bring about the very opposite of what he seeks, namely to get at the truth in accordance with the rule of law.
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a debate with the Minister of Justice on the jurisprudence as he probably knows a lot more than I do about the issue. However, I want to make a comment because I want it on the record for everyone to see.
When the Prime Minister set up the Gomery commission, he said that he was mad as hell. He told the Canadians that he would lift every stone, through the Gomery commission, to ensure the wrongdoers paid the full price of the law. If I am understanding things correctly today and if the Liberals cannot support our motion, I would say that the Prime Minister of Canada was very close to seriously misrepresenting what Gomery was all about to every Canadian in the country.
When he took to the TV screens a few weeks ago, he presented the same package, telling us to wait for Gomery, that he would get to the bottom of this and that the wrongdoers would pay. What the Minister of Justice has said today is that Gomery cannot charge people, the wrongdoers cannot be brought to justice and it is not within the ambit of Gomery. That is not exactly what the Prime Minister has told Canadians.
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I respect the concern of the hon. member to get at the truth, which was exactly the purpose of the Prime Minister in setting up the Gomery commission of inquiry. The misrepresentation is being made in terms of its attribution not by the Prime Minister but by the hon. member. The Prime Minister understood that a commission of inquiry must be set up pursuant to the Inquiries Act.
Under section 13 of the Inquiries Act, the Gomery commission has the power with respect to determinations of misconduct regarding individuals, but it does not have the power, in and of itself, to engage in criminal prosecution. That does not mean there cannot be criminal prosecutions. In fact, four criminal prosecutions have already been launched. That does not mean that there cannot be civil liability. There have already been civil suits launched with respect to the recovery of assets in the amount of $41 million.
What the hon. member fails to appreciate is the crucial distinction between the Gomery commission and a court of law. The Gomery commission does not have the power to assign civil or criminal liability. Only a court of law can do that. The Gomery commission can arrive at findings of fact and recommendations which can prevent any pattern of misconduct, identify the misconduct in this case and allow for any such criminal prosecutions or civil liabilities as may be initiated pursuant to the rule of law and the principles of the rule of law to develop in consequence of the Gomery commission's findings and recommendations.
We should at least have sufficient respect for the Gomery commission and the principles of the rule of law to allow all the evidence to be concluded, all the arguments to be framed and all the determinations to be drawn before we seek to make predeterminations of guilt and collective indictment and short circuit the Gomery inquiry, if not jeopardize its independence, its application and its efficacy.
Keith Martin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice for his erudite and learned dissertation on the difference between inquiries and the courts and the powers they both have or do not have. All members of the House and particularly the public would like to ensure that individuals who committed wrongdoings be brought in front of a court of law, be found guilty and be prosecuted.
Could the Minister of Justice inform the public of what could be done to prosecute the individuals who may have committed offences under the Criminal Code as it stands today.