JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 7, 1998

• 1537

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order.

Peter, your motion.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. It gives me no great pleasure to discuss this motion today.

As members know, there is tangible and mounting evidence of the inappropriate role played by the Prime Minister and his office in the RCMP security arrangements at the APEC summit. For those who would dispute that evidence, I would suggest that they re-examine the e-mails, the memorandums, the notes, and the letters.

The Prime Minister could have ended any doubt on his role as well as the role of his office by making a ministerial statement in the House of Commons, which I urged him to do on a number of occasions. He could have even offered to appear before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission itself, although for reasons that I will outline later, this too would have been insufficient to be fully open and accountable.

The Prime Minister has chosen not to appear. He chooses not to answer questions and he chooses to remain unaccountable. He has based his refusal on a completely false premise, I suggest. The proceedings of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission prevent the APEC summit from being discussed in Parliament is what he has repeated, as has the Solicitor General.

Nowhere in part VII of the RCMP Act, which governs the Public Complaints Commission, does it state that by having a witness or a subject testifying in Parliament, the Public Complaints Commission is compromised. Indeed, the Solicitor General conceded as much by discussing the details of the APEC scandal in a public place—a very public place. While Parliament and the Canadian people are shut out from this candour, he chose to do so in a very reckless and irresponsible way. He may claim now that it wasn't inappropriate, but it was discussed at length and it was discussed in a public place.

Canadians should not have to book a flight on Air Canada to get answers on whether the Prime Minister and his office politically interfered with the RCMP at APEC. They should get answers in the House of Commons, in the Parliament of Canada.

Failing getting answers in Parliament, Madam Chair, Canadians should get answers at parliamentary committees, in a public forum. The mandate of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission does not extend into issues surrounding the Prime Minister's Office nor into issues of political interference. Furthermore, the members of the commission and the inquiry are appointed by the Prime Minister and depend upon the Prime Minister and his office for reappointment should they choose to apply.

I will trust that the Liberal members of this committee are independent of the Prime Minister, and I know the opposition members are also independent. However, as was stated earlier in the House of Commons by an NDP member, it is the appearance of impartiality that is of equal importance.

The political decisions of the Prime Minister, his office, and his government are to be held accountable by all Canadians through their elected officials in Parliament or at the parliamentary committee, not at a public complaints commission that doesn't have the mandate to do so, particularly when that committee has been appointed by the government and is accountable to the government.

• 1540

If the Solicitor General can discuss APEC on a public airplane, surely we can discuss APEC at a public parliamentary committee. I ask all committee members to look past the rhetoric and recognize the desire for Canadians to have the Prime Minister and his ministers appear before a public forum and be accountable.

The Public Complaints Commission does not have the means, the mandate, or the independence to properly scrutinize elected officials. This committee does have that ability. We do not report to the Solicitor General, which the Public Complaints Commission does. We do not report to a minister, and we do not report to the commissioner of the RCMP. We report to Parliament.

Let's show Canadians that integrity and accountability do mean something in this place. Let's have an independent public review by this committee.

Madam Chair, with my remarks I'd also like to reference the fact that with respect to existing evidence and references to the Prime Minister and his involvement in APEC, there are 23 documents that reference in some way the PMO or the PM. Those include references in RCMP officers' notes or e-mails that apparently have been leaked from his office.

Madam Chair, I would as well like to say that this motion is not limited solely to the examination of the APEC matter. I would suggest that it could also encompass the relationship between the PMO and the RCMP as it relates to investigations such as Airbus and other references in the past to the PMO, be it this prime minister, this government, or any government and their interference with RCMP matters, investigations, or issues the RCMP have been dealing with.

That is the essence and the motivation behind this motion, Madam Chair. I would respectfully ask that it be considered by this committee and put to a vote.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): I would like to support this motion.

Ever since this commission started we've had the government talking about integrity and the Solicitor General saying it would be completely inappropriate to discuss any of the details around that investigation. But we've got these problems. We've got the Prime Minister's lawyer and the government's lawyer in Vancouver, who have spent now over two days saying that by asking the Prime Minister to come it would turn it into a political forum and get it away from its objective, which is to look at the role of the RCMP. I think that's a good enough reason right there, with the government counsel saying that this committee should be looking at any of the political aspects of this. That's one of the reasons why I would support the motion.

In this house the Prime Minister's and the Solicitor General's offices have said the Prime Minister will not appear. I think it's very important for Canadians to have a look at the political role that took place in this whole event. We've been in the House now for three days in question period talking about comments the Solicitor General may or may not have made. We've had the Solicitor General today calling another member of the House as close to being a liar as you can. We've had that member outside the House today calling the Solicitor General a liar. I think it's very unfortunate for our political system that both sides have got to this stage.

I would like to think we could have Mr. Toole come to this committee and ask him the questions under oath as to what was said and what wasn't said. I know from the government side I've heard that these are private conversations and they have no right in the public eye. I would tend to agree with that: that private conversations are private conversations. But I was also a member of a government when the Attorney General was taped illegally by a reporter, who put those conversations in a newspaper. That Attorney General resigned the next day, saying that his job as Attorney General in the province of British Columbia is more important than his personal life and trying to hang on to a job, because the Attorney General must be above any recrimination, any reproach, and must set the highest of standards. Yet we've got a Solicitor General in this country right now who I think a lot of Canadians don't believe.

I would support the motion. And I would put an amendment to that motion: that everywhere he talks about the PMO, we add the Solicitor General's Office to that also.

The Chair: Do you accept that amendment, Mr. MacKay?

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's fine, Madam Chair. In fact if the motion is to include the Solicitor General, I would suggest it should also include the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's fine. We can add the Solicitor General and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Given the numbers you have, I'm not too worried.

The Chair: Okay, could we just calm down?

• 1545

Just to get a neat package, you agree that the motion should read what? Tell me what the motion should read.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct an independent review into the Prime Minister's relationship with the RCMP, Foreign Affairs' relationship with same, and if my friend from the Reform Party wants to add the Solicitor General's Office, that's fine.

The Chair: Okay. So let's say that's the motion, rather than voting on an amendment. If you guys are in agreement, that's the motion we'll have. All right.

I have several people on my list right now. Paul DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think that the mover of this motion and Mr. Reynolds in support are saying that we need to deal with it on the political level. I'd submit that what has been going on in the House for the last several weeks is the appropriate place for that political involvement to occur. It has been occurring—maybe not to the satisfaction of the opposition, but it has been going on.

I don't think it's proper use of committee time to be delving into the political pursuits of the opposition. They have House time to do that. I think there's more important work this committee should be doing.

Even more importantly, Madam Chair, I think there's the issue of the role of the Public Complaints Commission. It's doing its job now, even as we speak. And here we are saying that we're going to try to undertake hearings that would be redundant, I think, to the job the Public Complaints Commission is structured to do. I think that would be tantamount to contempt for the work of that committee or that commission, and it would certainly in my opinion be abuse of this committee's time.

The Chair: Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've spent 25 years as a politician in the city, and I'll tell you I've seen some people looking for cheap publicity, and this is one of them. It's got to be the cheapest of the cheap. As far as I'm concerned, there's been a resignation in Victoria, that's right, but for different reasons, and Mr. Reynolds knows that. That was altogether different. It was for different reasons totally. It was Brian Smith who was involved. I know that very well, because I've served 25 years as a mayor in the city and a council member.

If we really look at this whole thing.... Imagine yourself on a DC-8. That's a noisy piece of equipment. Just imagine that. All of a sudden there's a guy sitting two rows back who very conveniently has a pencil and paper and is ready to write down what everybody's saying. Just imagine that. I'm certainly not equipped that way, and I've been in politics for 26 years. Neither would I want to listen to anybody's conversation that's two rows away, or try to, whatever it is, because I think that's really cheap—the cheapest of the cheap.

To try to write word for word what the person said, I guarantee you that is impossible in a DC-8, word for word—I guarantee you. So what they did is probably put some words in. Or what they might have heard they didn't really hear. Those are the things that are very questionable.

Do you know what bothers me? I've been a politician for 25 years, just a few months in Ottawa, and I'm sick to hear what is happening—that somehow the other side cannot help run Canada, make it a better place to live in and make things better for all Canadians. They seem to want to party-bash or take political shots on something that's not true. They keep on telling stories that are not factual.

How can you people live with yourselves under these conditions?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Chair, this has absolutely nothing to do with the motion. There's no reference here—

Mr. Lou Sekora: Cheap shots.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —to the notes and the Solicitor General and Mr. Proctor. There's no mention of that in this motion whatsoever.

The Chair: He's in order.

Carry on, Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Yes.

I'll tell you something, as far as I'm concerned, it just reminds me of about the cheapest thing that ever could take.... I'll tell you, it's sickening. I could throw up in the House by listening to this kind of garbage that somebody has heard something and that it's factual and everything else.

It's like.... I don't know. I'll tell you, in all my 25 years it's probably about the worst thing I've ever seen happen in the House. I'd hoped that we'd get into business in the House of what we should do as politicians—help each other, whatever stripes we are, to make Canada a better place to live, and forget about this, that you grab hold of something, twist it a wee bit and carry on with it and run with it on a daily basis.

• 1550

Those people sitting in the audience must be sick of what they're hearing. They'll say, “This is the government that's governing Canada? These are the people we're looking to lead us and make Canada a greater place to live?” Hell, I'll tell you—pardon my expression—I wouldn't pay five cents for it. That's right. It's not worth five cents. And it goes on on a daily basis, hammering away at something that has no substance whatsoever, but you people believe it. I'll tell you something, I don't know how you can believe lies—and damned lies.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sekora.

Jim Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): First of all, I am speaking in favour of the motion, but I'd like to make it absolutely clear to everybody that I'm not for a moment suggesting that this should be a witch hunt. We have a responsibility to the citizens of Canada. We are here for a very clear and specific reason: to represent the interests of Canadians.

Notwithstanding the little diatribe we just heard, we're not here just talking about a conversation that the honourable member who spoke.... He talks about his great experience, but there's a considerable difference between a Dash 8 and a DC-8. He's about ten years out of step. There hasn't been one of those flying in a long time in Canada. And the person who overheard the conversation was in the same row, not two rows back. He's talking about accuracy, so he should stress that himself.

I think it's important that there are a lot of other things that have come out. The public has expressed concern about the possibility that the Prime Minister's Office interfered with the operation of the RCMP. I'm not saying that the PMO did, or that the PMO necessarily did anything wrong—or for that matter the Solicitor General. But it's out there in the public domain now. There are a lot of people who are concerned about it. And there are a lot of people questioning a process where there's an investigation that is being conducted by a group of people who report to the people who stand accused of possibly interfering with their operation to start with. It's a strange system where you investigate yourself and declare yourself to be guilt-free.

I think that for the public's sake, even the Liberal members here would want the opportunity to have a proper forum to show that there was absolutely nothing improper done. As everyone knows, in politics perception is 90% of reality. There's a bad perception out there. I would be very surprised if government members wouldn't want the opportunity to show that nothing improper took place. And that is not going to be cleared up by having the RCMP investigate themselves and report to the very people who in the public eye stand accused—not guilty, but stand accused of possible wrongdoing.

We're supposed to be here in a committee in a relatively—and I do stress the word “relatively”—non-partisan role to conduct the business within the domain, in the case of this committee, of justice and the Solicitor General of the people of Canada. I think we have an obligation to do that in this particular instance.

We have a situation where concerns have been raised. Think realistically of how the public is going to react to a report conducted by the RCMP about the RCMP and about the potential of interference from the very office they have to report their findings to. It doesn't matter how innocent all the players in this may be; the very fact that it's being conducted in-house, in this nature, and in this closed manner is going to leave that question open.

I would think that the government themselves would want the opportunity to show that in fact there was no impropriety, if that's the way the evidence turns out, and go to the public and say that we as a multiparty committee studied this and these are the results.

The only reason for not supporting this is if they fear the results of that study.

The Chair: Thank you.

Derek Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

• 1555

I thought I understood Mr. Gouk to suggest that somehow the RCMP Public Complaints Commission wasn't going to be independent, that it was somehow constrained in what it would do, that it was somehow an in-house investigation. I really hope that by his very public remarks here today, he hasn't compromised the independence of that inquiry, because I think when the commissioners have an opportunity to read his remarks, if they do, questions may come into their minds. So I would caution.... Well, we all stand cautioned about making public remarks—

Mr. Jim Gouk: Some more than others.

Mr. Derek Lee: —about public processes.

However, I am a little distressed at the members around this committee. Perhaps some of the public—I can't fault all of the public—would be unaware that the Privy Council Office is at the nerve centre of collection and analysis of intelligence information in this country. That of course is the administrative arm of the Prime Minister. So I think we have to distinguish—and I'm disappointed it hasn't been done by members here—between the role of the police in criminal investigation and law enforcement and the role of the police in doing protection of internationally protected persons, or the RCMP protective service. This is a different function for the police force, and it's quite distinct from the enforcement of the criminal law and criminal investigation, which is a part of the criminal judicial process.

So it should be a surprise to no one that the Privy Council Office has a very real connection to the work of the RCMP protective service, both domestically and for internationally protected persons. No one should think for a moment that the protection of IPPs is something the Prime Minister's Office is indifferent about. Although the Prime Minister himself wouldn't necessarily have a real connection in the day-to-day work on that envelope, you can be sure that the Privy Council Office, through the coordinator and the two committees that operate out of there, would have a role. So I'm disappointed that this perspective hasn't been articulated around this table, at the one committee around the House of Commons where it should be articulated. It should be well known.

There are numerous good issues this committee might choose to pursue coming out of the APEC conference itself. One of those could be the role of the protective service in relation to freedom of expression, or the role of the protective service, the command and control of the protective service when it comes to IPPs or Canadians who are under the protection of the protective service. These are good issues. But I don't see that the committee is ready to undertake those in an objective manner at this point in time.

My own perception is that the opposition parties, because that is their role, have so highly politicized all of the issues in this debate now that we can barely touch them without polluting the whole thing with such a degree of politicization that we can't deal with them objectively. As a government member, while I might like to address some of these issues, I feel that the motion doesn't hit a nail on the head for me. It's simply spray-PEC, spray-PEC, spray-PEC.

We have to be able to focus a bit better than that, in my view, Madam Chairman. It's okay for question period to focus intensely on these things; that's the role of the House. The House hasn't asked us to look at this.

I'm just not ready, in the current environment, to support the motion.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Chairman, it would be too easy to link this issue to the events that occurred recently and to the conversations between the Solicitor General and an acquaintance on an airplane.

In my view, we need to ask yourselves what is the best forum in which to debate the relationship between, not the Privy Council Office, but between the Prime Minister's Office and the RCMP and between those responsible for ensuring the safety of the presidents and heads of state and government attending the APEC conference in Vancouver.

• 1600

Doubts have been expressed about the ability of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission to explore the exact nature of this relationship. The ability of this commission is well-known, as are the limits of its authority. All it will be able to do is make recommendations concerning the actions of members of the RCMP. Given this fact, we have to wonder what is the most appropriate forum in which to review this matter.

Committees have the power to call witnesses, to question them and to ask them to produce documents. The Foreign Affairs Committee held a debate similar to this. The chair of this committee was present and hinted that not only was the Foreign Affairs Committee not the appropriate forum, but also that this committee might be, even though she had argued that the commission was the most credible forum for this review.

However, doubts persist as to the ability of this commission to examine the political relationship between the Prime Minister's Office and members of the RCMP. The public now too has some concerns, despite what you said, about the independence of certain government appointees, persons whom have been shown to have ties and to have made financial contributions to the government party. These doubts must be dispelled by an inquiry into a relationship which is eminently political in nature.

Since committees are composed of parliamentarians with no ties to a government or a political party, they would seem to be an appropriate forum in which to conduct such an inquiry. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports the motion introduced by the Conservative Party member calling for this committee to conduct a review, unless of course this committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee were to conduct a joint review, which is an interesting option. There is some merit to that suggestion. Since the House has been busy for the past three or more days with matters that clearly—the Finance Minister said so himself—do not seem appropriate or useful in terms of moving this matter forward, perhaps this is something that this committee, or the two committees primarily concerned, could discuss in conjunction with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission inquiry now under way.

In my opinion, the credibility of certain institutions is at stake here, the credibility first and foremost of institutions that are critical in a parliamentary system which places its trust in a government, in a Prime Minister and in his cabinet and which expects the office of the Solicitor General, also an institution, to be credible and to have the trust of the House, the Government and above all, the public.

Those who have a duty to serve the public should think about this long and hard. We know how many members sit on this committee. Some of you seated across this table must search your souls and decide in good conscience if this matter deserves to be debated by a committee.

Finally, I'd like to plead on behalf of those who are concerned about human rights, for those who believe that to live in Canada is to live in the best country in the world because of the very high regard we have for human rights.

• 1605

The students in Vancouver no longer believe this because they were denied their fundamental right to freedom of expression. These same students want the he full details of what happened to be brought to light. They are concerned, as others are, that the commission will not be able to uncover what really transpired. I am appealing to people' conscience, to those who, in my opinion, can make a difference by authorizing a House committee to investigate this matter as it should be investigated.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam Chairman, all of us witnessed the events that took place in Vancouver a number of months ago, shameful events that we never imagined could happen in Canada or in Quebec, but which happened nonetheless. In and of themselves, these events fully warrant a review. Such a review was in fact ordered. However, although an inquiry by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is now under way and may shed some light on a number of things, it will not explain some of the actions of the RCMP. It will not shed any light on the behaviour of members of this police force. This commission does not have the authority to examine the relationship between the Prime Minister's Office and the RCMP, a relationship that may have led to this shameful display.

Earlier, Mr. Lee seemed to be saying that it was quite normal for the Prime Minister's Office to have ties with the RCMP in order to ensure the safety of foreign leaders and officials. Perhaps. However, what I find hard to imagine, Madam Chairman, is that the Prime Minister's Office may have instructed RCMP members to act as they did. That I feel is the most fundamental reason why Parliament should concern itself with this matter. It should explore the role that the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself played in this shameful spectacle.

Not only does this commission not have the authority to investigate these ties, Madam Chairman, but what's more, the Prime Minister made it very clear from the outset that he had no intention of appearing before this commission. Consequently, it will not really be possible for this commission to bring to light all of the details of what really transpired at the APEC conference. The facts were already somewhat unclear. They became even more muddled when it was learned that the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the RCMP, discussed the matter with someone, although apparently he could recall neither the identity nor the sex of that person. He finally remembered that it was a good friend of his, someone seated next to him on a flight, someone with whom he had discussed all of the details of this affair, at least according to the NDP member's allegations.

The issue has become even more clouded. Not only is the Canadian public entitled to question the integrity of the Prime Minister, who may have played a role in suspending the most basic of democratic rights of the students who were repressed by the RCMP, but it is also quite justified in calling into question the credibility and integrity of the minister responsible for the RCMP.

I would like to think, Madam Chairman, that all of this is merely a fabrication. I would like to agree with Mr. Sekora and say that what's happening here is terrible. I think what we're seeing here is that the House of Commons can only play a limited role when it comes to shedding light on these events, because despite the fact that the matter was debated for several days in the House, notably during Question Period, the issue is becoming more clouded everyday. Not only that, but parliamentarians have been presented with two very different versions of events and according to our tradition, we must view these versions as equally truthful. Our parliamentary tradition holds that statements made in the House are to be taken as the truth.

• 1610

The member for Palliser informed us that the Solicitor General said one thing, whereas the Solicitor General, in an absolutely extraordinary about-face, less than 24 hours later, said exactly the opposite. According to the standing orders and House tradition, we must take both statements has being truthful. Clearly, Madam Chairman, the House of Commons was not the ideal forum in which to lay bare the facts.

If the RCMP Public Complaints Commission cannot clarify the exact role the Prime Minister and his office played in the events that took place in Vancouver, and if the House of Commons cannot clear up this matter or determine whether or not the Solicitor General acted unwisely, given that he never denied having discussed this matter with his seat mate, then in my estimation, the only body that is in a position to really shed some light on what happened is this committee, which is responsible for examining matters arising from the Solicitor General and, to some extent, for ensuring the integrity and credibility of this office holder.

Clearly, Madam Chairman, the facts are totally unclear. If all of the members of this House and all of the members of this committee truly want to get to the bottom of this affair—and I believe Mr. Sekora is quite sincere when he says that a number of cheap shots have been taken—those involved in this matter must be given an opportunity to tell their side of the story.

For this very basic reason, I call now upon my colleagues from all political parties on this committee to vote in favour of this motion so that we can get to the bottom of this and then move on to other matters as soon as possible.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): When my colleague Mr. Turp appealed to members a few minutes ago to follow their conscience, he looked me straight in the eyes. I want to thank him for that token of respect. I wish others had acted in a similar manner toward my colleagues.

I read the beginning of the resolution and I have to admit, perhaps surprisingly to you , that I am not "deeply troubled", as the member said, but rather very concerned about "the strong suggestion of political interference from the Prime Minister's Office in RCMP security activities." However, it is also stated that "Canadians deserve to know that the RCMP is free to conduct its activities in a manner free from undue political interference." That is precisely why I cannot support this motion. I cannot accept this premise for many very simple and fundamental reasons.

From the standpoint of fundamental justice, since when is an allegation a truth? Since when are a person's allegations deemed to be the absolute truth as far as everyone is concerned? Fundamentally, we have a problem here. Let me do a little analysis. From the very moment this matter was raised, all of the allegations and questions in the House have been aimed at undermining the credibility and integrity of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission in the eyes of the Canadian public. There have been systematic attempts to do that. I could give you numerous examples. For instance, it has been argued that the Public Complaints Commission is not an independent body, whereas it is a well-known fact that it can call witnesses, request the production of papers, conduct reviews and even conclude that it cannot proceed any further. It has the authority to do all of that.

• 1615

As for the concerns expressed about the RCMP's ability to investigate its own activities, it could be one of two things: either people are misinformed about the provisions of the legislation governing the activities of this commission, or these provisions are known, in which case I have to wonder why anyone might want to mislead people. Admittedly, this commission was established pursuant to the RCMP Act, but at no time are the decisions of this commission governed by the RCMP.

I admit that I was troubled, deeply troubled even, by the events of the past two days and by the fact that we seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time in the House discussing this affair when we could have been talking about issues that I consider to be more important. How is it that notes taken about a private conversation that was overheard—and the fact that notes were taking shows some intent—have suddenly become fact for a significant number of this country's elected representatives, without them even bothering to question the accuracy of these notes? I have a major problem with this.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We have asked ourselves that question too.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Please let me finish and then you can respond.

I have a problem with people saying that the commission's integrity has been compromised. A private conversation in no way compromises the commission's integrity. However, the fact of someone taking notes and making public a private conversation, that could be construed as compromising.

The situation is very clear to me. From the outset, people have been doing everything they can to prove that the commission cannot do the work that it was set up to do. The question I have is the same one that was put a few moments ago, but with a twist. What are people afraid of? Are they afraid of what the commission might ultimately uncover? Why not let it do its job? Why not let it make its findings, even if this means having it recognize that it could not go as far as it would have liked to? However, I doubt if that will be the case. Jean Pelletier and Jean Carle, both of whom work in the Prime Minister's Office, have already said that they will appear before this commission.

Extremely solid arguments are being taken and twisted to systematically discredit the commission. Is it worth it, politically, to publicly call into question the integrity and credibility of our institutions? That's why I plan to oppose this resolution.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Reynolds, I've got you on the list at this point, but there are others who haven't spoken yet. Perhaps I'll go to them first, and then come back to you.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's fine.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

As we speak, the Public Complaints Commission of the RCMP is investigating this situation with a view to shedding some light on what happened. I think we all want to know that.

The suggestion that they do not operate at arm's length and are not independent of the RCMP discredits that commission. I think by voting in favour of this motion we confirm that we don't feel that they have any substance or any credence as well. That's the message we will be sending to Canadians as well as to the commissioners—that it's a sham, and what's the point?

Secondly, it has been commented here that this is not a witch hunt. I would suggest perhaps otherwise. The original motion has been now, in my opinion, tainted by the addition of the Solicitor General and the relationship with the Department of Foreign Affairs. The original motion dealt with the APEC summit. Some of the members here today suggest that we should be summoning as a witness Mr. Toole on an alleged conversation that took place on a Dash 8 with the Solicitor General. I'm not sure that the connection of the original motion and that witness, or whoever, may follow.

For the balance of the year, we could be sitting here with a line of witnesses a mile long, and the business of the committee would just grind to a halt. I suggest to you that the business of this committee, as reviewed in the agenda of an earlier meeting, certainly is worth pursuing and would certainly take priority over an investigation of this nature.

• 1620

I just don't feel there is any substance or necessity for it.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Maloney.

Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

A lot of what I want to say has already been said, so I'll try not to repeat what my colleagues said.

Obviously I do not agree with the resolution that's before us, for two main reasons. One, I do believe it will compromise the process that is in place at the moment. And I will even go further in saying to Mr. MacKay that if there is a problem with the process itself—and perhaps I've missed the point, but I'd like to feel that's the point we're discussing around this table—perhaps after the Public Complaints Commission has finished its work we should look at the process that exists in terms of Canadians all over this country bringing forth complaints against the RCMP and allowing students or any other person living in Canada to exercise their democratic rights.

Perhaps it's the process that is flawed. If that's the case, then we should be looking at the process. But in terms of bringing forward right now a parallel process while one that has been duly legislated and is duly in place is put into question immediately, even during the process they're going through, their own investigation, I would feel would be not the proper time, if I can use those words.

I would consider, in fact, that we consider the whole process perhaps after the commission has come forward and brought forward their findings.

[Translation]

Now for a few comments in the other language. I was somewhat insulted when my Bloc Québécois colleagues said that here in Canada, student rights had been compromised. In other countries, these same students would have been killed or imprisoned. Here, they are allowed to express their views through a valid process and now we have people calling this process into question and wondering if they have any rights at all in Canada. In my opinion, this argument doesn't wash. They do have the right to plead their case before this tribunal.

[English]

I'd like to also repeat what Mr. Saada said about perceptions. Perceptions were created by the opposition, in my opinion, that you are presumed innocent before being found guilty in this country. But we've already, through the media and through the opposition in the House of Commons, assumed and in fact compromised some of the proceedings of the commission.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the time I've been here I've been often amused, sometimes bemused, and sometimes I can't separate the two. But the member from the Bloc.... I don't know which category he comes into, but I remember when his leader received death threats. RCMP security was increased. People were held back, away from his leader. Where did the orders come from? Who cares. They looked after his security.

I wonder where your outrage was at that time. I didn't hear a peep out of you or anyone in your party because the RCMP was doing the job they should do.

An hon. member: Cheap shot.

An hon. member: No, a true shot.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Cheap shot? Fair enough.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's the analogy that's the problem. It isn't very relevant.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Turp, and then Mr. MacKay.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to make it clear to members on the other side that I've been on both sides. We have no trouble with the commission and the role it's allowed to play, none whatsoever. That's not the issue here. Let them play the role.

I'll remind members on the other side that I've been, as I've said, on the other side. When you were in opposition—Mr. Sekora, you can speak when I'm finished—you had members on your side....

The Chair: Order, please. Go ahead.

Mr. John Reynolds: You had Sheila Copps and John Nunziata on this legislation that set up the Public Complaints Commission, who said exactly what we're trying to point out: that this doesn't do the job. That's what we're getting at. The Public Complaints Commission cannot get the job done that needs to be done.

• 1625

Go back and read their comments. They were very emphatic that this commission was not perfect, that government could interfere. And I can tell you that the Tory government did. Members on your side were absolutely right when they were opposing this legislation and certain aspects of it, because when the Tories were in they went right to the wall of the Supreme Court to stop the Public Complaints Commission from looking into the chief of the RCMP on a budget leak.

That's what we're after. We're after it because with the role of the Public Complaints Commission they can't do the job. There's enough evidence in the material we have: on November 13, hand-written notes between RCMP people, “The PM wants the tenters out”. Well, the PM isn't Peter MacKay. It's not Preston Manning they're talking about, I'm sure.

The Chair: It could be Phil Murray.

Mr. John Reynolds: Phil Murray.

I can go on. There are other aspects here. They talk about having banners removed, and that they're not a security issue, but a political issue—“Why are we being asked to do that?” These are internal memos from the RCMP. That's the issue here, the issue we're trying to make in the opposition.

Mr. Sekora can talk about cheap shots. Well, you know, when you're in opposition.... The Airbus affair is a good example. I don't think there's a proud Liberal in that issue. But they brought it up. They thought it was their duty to do so because they were trying to point something out that was corrupt in a government. That's what we're trying to do.

In politics, Mr. Sekora, you've been at it 25 years, and you know what it's all about. The opposition's job in a parliament is to make sure the truth comes out. That's what we're trying to do here. We're trying to find out was there a role the Prime Minister's Office played—

An hon. member: Bullshit.

Mr. John Reynolds: It's not bullshit. You can say bullshit all you want.

The Chair: Order, please. Just ignore it and carry on.

Mr. John Reynolds: Well, I'll ignore it.

This is an appropriate place right here in this committee to look at this issue. I respect every member on that side. One member said that the House is an appropriate place for political debate. I would agree with that.

I'll go right to today. I asked the Solicitor General a very simple question. At 3.30 he didn't know who it was or what it was. “What time did you call Mr. Toole?” Because if it was 3.45, I think that signifies something. If it was the next day, maybe it signifies something else. But we didn't get an answer to that question.

You know that when you're in opposition all you complain about is the government doesn't give you any answers. I'll admit that when I was in government the answers didn't go quite freely either. It's the thrust of debate. But in committee you can call witnesses and they can be put under oath, and we can get to the bottom of these issues that are in the leaked documents from the RCMP and other leaked documents that talk about what role was played.

I'm not concerned about APEC from the standpoint of what the police did to some people who were professional agitators and who pushed over a fence. I'm sure this commission will give us a ruling on what happened in that area. But I am concerned about a lady who was told she couldn't put a sign in her window on the route. And why? On orders of the Prime Minister, because Mr. Suharto didn't want to be embarrassed. That affected her civil rights and her freedom of speech, and that's what we're concerned with.

Sure, there's a lot of politics in it, but I can tell you that there are some issues here that need to be decided. If the Prime Minister is totally uninvolved, I'll apologize at the end. But if somebody in his office made a mistake and gave orders they shouldn't have, I think we need to know who that is and what the punishment is going to be, because I don't think we want it to happen again.

As Mr. Sekora and other members from B.C. know, we've had lots of conferences in British Columbia. We had a world's fair. We had the GLOBE '90 Environmental Conference. We've never had this problem before, never had this kind of interference before. I think we have to get to the bottom of it to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Canada is a country where people like to come to conferences. It's a good business for our country. It's a good business for my province. It's a good business for the province of Quebec. People like to go there because it's different from other parts of the world. It's a nice free part of the world where they can go where crime is low.

We don't want this image getting out. If somebody made a mistake, we have a right to know who made that mistake. We have a right to make sure that person is punished and make sure it doesn't happen again.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Turp, and then Mr. MacKay, and then we'll call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'd like to respond briefly to the parliamentary secretary's comments. Recently, I joined some of my colleagues on a mission to Indonesia sponsored by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation. The irony here is that students were the ones who brought about the downfall of Suharto in Indonesia. Despite living under a regime that disregarded human rights, these students succeeded, by this strength of their protests and convictions, to bring down Mr. Suharto, who didn't deserve to be the head of state. Today, these very same students are the ones who want to push his successor, Mr. Habibie, and his government out of office.

• 1630

Right in Vancouver, barely several months before Indonesian students brought about the fall of Suharto, students were denied the right to protest. The images and the evidence are now undeniable. Of course these matters must be debated. Such issues as fundamental freedoms and protecting these freedoms will not necessarily be debated before the commission.

Beyond that, I am not entirely convinced of the distinction that you are trying to make. Students in this country have rights and fundamental freedoms and recourses are available to them. That is what you claim. No one is denying that under the Charter or other federal or provincial laws, they have options when their rights are interfered with, but the point is that it never should have happened to them in the first place. It would have been preferable if their rights had not be violated in the first place so that they never would have had to consider any recourse. In this instance, it is because their rights were indeed violated that they are seeking some redress.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but their rights should not have been interfered with in the first place. End of discussion. Had this not happen, they would not have had to consider using all of the recourses available to them. Fortunately, these recourses exist.

Let's understand one thing. Even if no one doubted the commission, its independent status or its work... Our colleague Svend Robinson, like others here, agrees that the commission's attorney is a very upstanding and remarkable individual, someone whom we can trust. That is certainly true of other commission members as well. However, even if the commission's independence and impartiality were not called into question, people would still have to be convinced that the commission has the authority to examine those issues of interest to us, namely the relationship between the Prime Minister's Office and the RCMP, and the allegation of political interference in activities that must be free from such interference.

Even if the commission had that authority, the question is: Will it exercise it without the restraint that is sometimes shown by commissions of an administrative nature that are not judicial commissions. That is one reason why parliamentary committees should step in to examine a different or separate issue. I don't see why there couldn't be a parallel review of these matters, conducted either by this committee, by the Foreign Affairs Committee, or by both. They are generally known for operating in a less partisan manner than the House of Commons.

In my view, some convincing arguments can be made to justify a review by a committee in order to shed some light on activities which are nothing to be proud of. Just look at the images. It is impossible not to regret these actions or to wonder if the RCMP were indeed acting on orders from the Prime Minister's Office. Therefore, I believe there are very valid reasons indeed for endorsing Mr. MacKay's motion.

[English]

The Chair: Last word, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the previous speakers for their comments.

Madam Chair, the point to be made is that the Public Complaints Commission does not have the mandate to look at political interference. It does not have the mandate or the scope or even the terms of reference that have been set by itself to look at the relationship between the PMO and the RCMP.

The Public Complaints Commission is not a decision-making body. It reports to the Solicitor General or the commissioner of the RCMP. Its report and its findings are not binding. I suggest that the report itself will have no impact on the ongoing relationship of the PMO and the RCMP. It makes recommendations.

• 1635

As I said, the terms of reference themselves are to look at events that took place between November 23 and November 27 in Vancouver and to look at the police actions and to determine whether they were excessive in the circumstance and to look specifically at RCMP officers—not where they got their orders, not who told them to do what or intervene or gave certain oblique references to how the security was to be handled. That doesn't fall within their mandate. It never will. It's something that's not going to be examined by that body. It will not affect the government whatsoever.

Madam Chair, you're a former prosecutor yourself. You have legal training. You've been in a courtroom and you know that having individuals come forward and put their hands on a Bible and swear to tell the truth sometimes—not always—will have an impact on whether they in fact will tell the truth. We have the ability to do that in this committee.

Madam Chair, if we are nothing else in this Parliament, in this committee, we should be truth seekers. Maybe I'm still naive. I'm a new member of Parliament and I've got a hell of a lot to learn. Maybe I could learn a lot from members opposite. But if nothing else, I thought we were out to find out the truth. We in this committee have an opportunity to do that and to get to the bottom of what happened. I think that's what Canadians want.

That's what this mission is aimed at—not a head-hunting exhibition, not grandstanding, but to find out what happened. There's significant evidence that has been disclosed already to suggest that something improper took place and that somebody was giving orders that led to this behaviour by the RCMP that is going to be judged by another body. But what we're looking at here is who gave the orders and what led to this. It's outside the scope of what the Public Complaints Commission is going to be examining in Vancouver. That's why I brought this motion forward and that's why it should be supported by all members present.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to call the question now. The motion is that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct an independent review into the Prime Minister's Office, the Solicitor General, and the Department of Foreign Affairs' relationship with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I assume you want a recorded vote.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

(Motion negatived: yeas 6; nays 8)

The Chair: Any other business?

All right, we're adjourned until the Monday we return.