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.
