Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this debate and to follow previous speakers who have very accurately and articulately, on the opposition side at least, put forward an argument as to why this government should be reconsidering its position.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus to the motion that has been brought forward by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, my counterpart within the NDP caucus as its House leader and a respected parliamentarian.
This motion, it is fair to say, is a very worthwhile measure. It is a motion that deserves the support of all hon. members regardless of political affiliation. This motion touches on basic human issues of fairness and equity and we in the Progressive Conservative Party support this motion.
I commend the member for Winnipeg—Transcona for bringing this forward at this time. It is a very timely intervention and it is certainly an issue all Canadians are very concerned with, for we in this Chamber and we outside this Chamber should be truth seekers first and foremost, not the hiders of truth. Unfortunately there are many who would castigate parliament and parliamentarians for just that and if we are to rebut those feelings among the general population we should be starting today.
A former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and a former prime minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, was a passionate defender of human rights in Canada and around the world. Under Mr. Diefenbaker's government Canada proclaimed the Canadian Bill of Rights and although the bill of rights has been superseded in many ways by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched in our Constitution in 1982, it continues.
In that original bill of rights there was a phrase which I suggest calls upon us to reflect today: “I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think is right and free to oppose what I believe is wrong”.
John Diefenbaker described these principles as the heritage of freedom. Sadly, Canada's heritage of freedom seems to have been forgotten by the current government both in the months, weeks and days leading up to and including last November's APEC summit and in the summit's aftermath leading up to today.
The RCMP public complaints commission is presently investigating the RCMP's use of pepper spray and force on student protesters at the APEC summit. I have raised serious objections to the limits of the commission's mandate and with the appropriateness of this particular body's conducting an independent review of the entire APEC affair. I suggest adamantly that the mandate itself does not include the ability for this commission to go into the area of political interference.
I nonetheless recognize that the commission should be as arm's length as possible from government, that it must be fair and treat all witnesses and potential witnesses in a just and equitable fashion. Yet there is no fairness in a commission in which some witnesses and some participants have access to legal representation paid for by the Canadian taxpayer while other witnesses do not. This is not a level playing field. Justice as represented by the scales we so often see is not a balanced approach.
Canadians who believe in fairness for all recognize this very basic principle. I find it difficult to believe that no one in this Chamber would recognize it. The public complaints commission recognizes the principle and wrote to the solicitor general twice to seek federal funding to cover the costs incurred by the students.
We have heard members of the government, in particular the solicitor general and the Prime Minister, time and time again tell us in the opposition and Canadians to have faith in the process, to let the commission do its work. They say the government believes this commission will get to the truth.
The commission has twice requested funding for these students. Once again we see this government exercising very restricted hearing, selective hearing. It hears what it wants and it says what it wants. The solicitor general has refused this request twice. He said no. I quote the Liberal government's own talking points in response to last Friday's decision. This government has expressed confidence in the commission yet it expresses no confidence in the commission's judgment in requesting funding for the students.
It is very perverse. I find it deeply disturbing that the Prime Minister, the solicitor general and the government were able to express so much faith in this commission and its judgment until the time the commission requested funding for the students. It is a convenient double standards that undermines an already precarious process.
The APEC double standards are not new to the Liberal government. It was this solicitor general who stood in the House and who in response to questions from the opposition repeatedly told parliament that the commission would not suffer from any political interference. The solicitor general then turned around and spoke freely in a public place about APEC without any regret or responsibility, none whatsoever. That was the first breach of his oath to office but not his last. Let us remember the issue of political interference by this government casts a very long shadow on the commission's consideration of whether the RCMP was justified in its use of pepper spray.
The gild is off the lily and the sheen is gone from the Prime Minister and this government. How can this government remove the stench of political interference when it uses taxpayer dollars to provide legal representation to every organization or person under its authority but gives nothing to the students, the alleged victims in this case? The students did not intentionally seek to have their lawyers in this public complaints commission process. One of the lawyers initially filed a motion early in the process to keep lawyers out of the inquiry and to maintain the commission's mandate as a non-adversarial fact finding body. Again I am quoting from Liberal talking points.
Did the government support this motion? No. It objected strenuously and demanded that lawyers be allowed to intervene on behalf of the commission's participants. I guess those participants did not include the complainants. The government in essence threw down the gauntlet at that point. Any claim that this was not an adversarial process had to be thrown out the window with that. The government has turned around and refused the same support for legal representation for students on two occasions.
Is there a single Liberal member of parliament who can pull his or her eyes from the prepackaged talking points and explain to Canadians why some commission participants get tax funded lawyers while other participants get nothing? It is completely perverse and indefensible.
Instead of quoting these talking points, Liberal members would be well advised to remember the words of a former Liberal member of parliament and a former minister of justice, the hon. Ron Basford, who spoke eloquently at this weekend's Liberal Party meeting in British Columbia.
He said that surely we believe in the right to protest, the right to speak out and the right to be defended and that the best way to get to the facts in this inquiry where all people are represented is to put the facts forward and test them through vigorous cross-examination. Obviously that includes having students represented by proper legally trained minds.
Meanwhile I am unable to locate a line anywhere in these Liberal talking points that would explain how providing lawyers for some while depriving lawyers for others ensures a non-adversarial fact finding body.
For the Liberals to sit in the House and say this is fairness is like the commissioner of baseball saying that the New York Yankees and the Montreal Expos can fairly compete against each other regardless of a $60 million gap in players salaries. Perhaps this is something that the current solicitor general can understand. The government has given one-sided resources to defend its interest before the commission while providing nothing to exclusively defend the other.
The Prime Minister has a taxpayer funded lawyer while the students do not. That is very curious, given the fact that the Prime Minister is not summoned, is not on the witness list and has indicated his reluctance to appear before the commission. Yet he has government funded layers there representing his interests.
For a process to be truly non-adversarial there must be a degree of commonality in the resources available to participants. The Liberals persist in contending that the government can fund lawyers for some but not for others and maintain a non-adversarial process. As soon as there was government insistence on having lawyers there the non-adversarial nature was gone.
In Canada we believe in legal equality for all, not special privileges for the government's chosen few. Good Liberals have been rewarded, will faithfully follow the talking points and will no doubt say that it is the government's role in the commission to protect the interest of the complainants. However, without those lawyers it is unable to do so.
In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to support the motion brought forward by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. This is the place and the time we should be debating this issue if Canadians are to have confidence in the process.