Mr. Speaker, as I said, the counsel has said that there has been no problem in that regard. I understand the gentleman in question is appearing before the counsel himself.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 42% of the vote.
Apec Inquiry October 21st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the counsel has said that there has been no problem in that regard. I understand the gentleman in question is appearing before the counsel himself.
Apec Inquiry October 21st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the counsel to the commissioners said that they are very satisfied with the co-operation they are getting from the government. They are having access to all kinds of information. There have been no problems in that regard at all.
Supply October 20th, 1998
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.
Supply October 20th, 1998
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.
Supply October 20th, 1998
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.
Supply October 20th, 1998
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.
Apec Inquiry October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the important issue at this time is to get to the bottom of the events that happened in the interest of Canadians, in the interest of the truth and in the interest of the complainants who filed the original complaint before this commission. That is what we are here to preserve.
Apec Inquiry October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. members across the way should quit maligning the process.
Apec Inquiry October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the application of this argument applies to a number of tribunals that cost not only the federal but provincial governments as well. Consequently the idea of consulting with colleagues broadly on this issue is the responsible thing to do.
Apec Inquiry October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is my confidence in the public complaints commission that allowed me to make available the $650,000 in additional funding to facilitate this process.
It is also my confidence in the public complaints commission's comments to me that it is very convinced that this can be done fairly and thoroughly, and justice will indeed be served.