House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 56% of the vote.
Pearson International Airport June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if the concern my friend has is not for constitutionality but for consistency, then perhaps he can begin by explaining how it is that his colleague at this end of the bench asked me 10 minutes ago how could I dare countenance the payment of money to a claimant in an action against the crown and now he seems to be suggesting that instead of passing Bill C-28 we should be paying out money to the claimants in relation to constitutionality.
Pearson International Airport June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the rule of law includes the democratic right of Parliament to enact legislation. That is exactly what has been done in this case.
We have worked toward the enactment of Bill C-28 which expresses and carries forward the policy of this government on which we were elected. That is to say we took a critical look at that transaction and we came to the conclusion that it was not in the public's interest to take steps to set it aside.
If the hon. member is concerned about law, legality or matters involving the Constitution, then he should be much influenced by the fact that an expert witness testified before the Senate committee of legal and constitutional affairs in relation to Bill C-28. The very constitutional expert from Osgoode Hall law school whom the Tories had relied upon in criticizing the bill testified last week that with the amendments we have proposed, the bill is indeed now lawful and constitutional.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the hon. member is asking or referring to. The facts of this matter are before the House, as are the responses I have given to the questions that have been put.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
No, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of what the hon. member refers to. I have told the House what is in issue in this matter. What is in issue in this matter is a police investigation. The role of the Department of Justice in that investigation has been made clear. Those are the facts.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.
Let me say this in response to the hon. member's question. He speaks about my skilfully trying to distance myself from events. That is not the case. What I have been trying to do last week and today is to explain and emphasize for the hon. member and his colleagues that we are dealing with two different matters. It is neither accurate nor appropriate to mix them.
On the first hand we have a Minister of Justice who receives information about an alleged wrongdoing in the past government who, in discharge of a responsibility, after consulting with the
deputy minister and the solicitor general, communicates that to the police. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest last week conceded that that indeed is the proper course.
A second and separate matter is the decision by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for its own reasons to commence its own investigation at a later time on the Airbus matter. It is separate. It is different. It is a matter for the police to decide.
If the hon. member can understand that those two matters are separate, he will be a long way down the road to understanding these matters.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, but first let me correct another error I am afraid.
The research department for the hon. member's party consists of a clipping service from the Sun chain of newspapers, so it is very difficult for it to carry on.
Let me correct an error. The hon. member referred to a statement I made last December that I had communicated information about the Airbus matter, and that is wrong.
What I said, which is a matter of public record, is that in discharging my responsibilities as I saw them, when I was fixed with knowledge of alleged wrongdoing by the previous government, after consulting with my deputy and with the solicitor general, I passed that on to the police to do with as they might. They looked into the matter and responded by saying they were going to take no steps as there was no basis for doing so.
In terms of the most recent clipping from which the hon. member is working, I can also say that last December when I was interviewed by Mr. Koring of the Globe and Mail who put that question to me, I did say I had not heard back. I was reminded within a few days and then I pointed out to the Globe and Mail within a few days that indeed I had heard back. That is the fact.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the only person talking about backroom deals is the hon. member for Beaver River. The only person talking about the payment of millions of dollars today is the hon. member for Beaver River.
I am busy defending a lawsuit on behalf of the Government of Canada and the people of this country.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member errs in two respects in putting her question. First, she referred to a justice department investigation.
The police are the people who investigate, and it was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that conducted and is conducting an investigation into this case. The role of the Department of Justice, as the hon. member knows or perhaps should know, is that the international assistance group was asked to communicate to a foreign government a request for assistance in the course of that investigation.
The second error into which the hon. member fell was to assert there may have been no evidence from the outset. That too is a matter that relates to the police investigation. If the Royal Canadian Mounted Police chooses to start or conduct or conclude an investigation based on what it finds or does not find, that is for it to decide. The police in this country conduct investigations based on their own judgments.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought never to doubt that I am accountable to the House as a member of the government and that the government is accountable to the House.
The hon. member should also know, as I have made clear, we are defending the litigation.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the police of course must continue whatever work they want to do unaffected by politicians.
The police investigation is separate from the civil litigation commenced by Mr. Mulroney in which he alleges defamation, and the hon. member will know that.
I have made it clear we have filed defences in the civil litigation and we are defending that action.