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]

Monday, October 19, 1998

• 1542

[English]

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

Mr. MacKay, you have a motion?

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I do, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I preface my remarks by stating that it gives me no pleasure to bring this motion before this committee. If it had been dealt with in another way, mainly in the House, I don't think I would deem this necessary.

For weeks, Canadians have been subjected to stonewalling and prevarication from this government, first on the role of the Prime Minister's Office directly in the security at APEC, then subsequently on the detail of an inappropriate public conversation that occurred on October 1.

The conversation, now documented, took place between the Solicitor General and Fred Toole, a lawyer from Saint John. It was a very public conversation held in a very public place in a tone that made it easily overheard three seats away. During this conversation the member for Palliser heard discussions about APEC and took detailed notes. He alleged that the Solicitor General prejudiced the process of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

In those notes, there are direct references to conversations surrounding “PM”, the Prime Minister. There are comments such as “He's the focus— I'm the cover— Hughie may be the guy who takes the fall— It will all come out in inquiry— 4-5 mounties overreacted for 5 minutes— No one knows this— I think it was excessive— pepper spray 1st line of defence— better than grabbing somebody, can break an arm.”

All of these references in the notes are attributed to comments made by the Solicitor General. This is a very serious allegation, Madam Chair, and in light of the Solicitor General's repeated pleas in the two previous weeks that nothing could be discussed in Parliament because it would interfere with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, this brings further disrepute to his office.

The Solicitor General produced a letter from Mr. Toole that admitted APEC was discussed, but that it was not done in a manner “which I”—meaning Mr. Toole—“interpreted as an indication that the ongoing Public Complaints Commission Inquiry had been compromised or that its outcome had been predetermined.” Mr. Toole did not feel this was the case. However, Mr. Toole is not the person to be making that judgment.

The member for Palliser, however, stands by his assertion that the Solicitor General prejudiced the outcome of this inquiry. In fact, he has pledged to swear under oath as to his version of the events. Canadians have essentially been left with the word of Mr. Proctor versus the word of the Solicitor General and a vague denial from a third person who was implicated in this public conversation.

• 1545

Unfortunately, Madam Chair, neither the Solicitor General nor Mr. Toole has been courageous enough to come before a public forum such as this committee. The member for Palliser, however, is openly suggesting that he would come here or appear before the Public Complaints Commission in Vancouver to swear to his version of events. In fact, Mr. Chair, we do not have any version of events from the Solicitor General or Fred Toole as to specifically what was discussed.

If the Solicitor General or Mr. Toole are confident that nothing inappropriate was discussed, as is asserted in Mr. Toole's letter about this October 1 flight, and if Liberal members of this committee are similarly confident that nothing inappropriate was discussed, why then should this motion not be passed?

The Solicitor General's portfolio is one of the most security-sensitive in the federal government. In fact, he is one of two members of the inner cabinet who are given the highest security clearance; the other one is the Minister of Justice.

It is the Solicitor General's office that has responsibility for the RCMP, CSIS, National Parole Board, and Correctional Service Canada. It's also in his mandate to include the responsibility for quasi-independent bodies such as the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, RCMP External Review Committee, and the Correctional Investigator.

The staff, most of whom are in the law enforcement or intelligence community, need to be reassured of the Solicitor General's discretion in the information that he handles on a day-to-day basis. They need to know that the veracity and credibility of the Solicitor General's denial is in fact something they can have confidence in. They need to know that the sound bites we get out of Question Period—I include my own in those remarks—are nothing more than talking points that have been distributed by parties making up both the government and the opposition.

Madam Chair, if we do not discuss this in a forum such as the justice committee, these employees I have discussed who fall under the purview of the Solicitor General's department, many of whom—I stress particularly members of the RCMP and CSIS—put their lives on the line daily for Canadians, are left knowing nothing more than what the member for Palliser is willing to say under oath about his claims. The Solicitor General's ongoing refusal to discuss specifics of what he said leaves them with no confidence in his ability to keep those remarks to himself.

If the Solicitor General wants to regain the confidence of his own department, his own portfolio, he should have no hesitation or difficulty in testifying before an all-party parliamentary forum such as this. He would be able to publicly answer questions and deny any wrongdoing.

The integrity of our law enforcement community and security agencies demand clarity on what was said during this flight. I ask all members, be they government or opposition members, to support this motion so we can assure Canadians that the Solicitor General did nothing wrong. This is an opportunity not only, I suggest, to condemn the Solicitor General, but for him to clear his name and to get rid of this ongoing cloud of insecurity and controversy over what was said on his flight to New Brunswick.

Madam Chair, with those comments, I would move that this committee convene for the purposes of examining or determining whether the Solicitor General, who serves in one of the most security-conscious cabinet portfolios, made inappropriate comments that would compromise the integrity of his office and department.

That's the motion I'm putting forward, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, as you may know, I had the opportunity for the last two weeks to sit in on these hearings, and I come back as a somewhat biased reporter. I recognize that, but nonetheless, I think I have some first-hand information about what is going on in Vancouver.

As we sit right at the moment in this place in Ottawa, the Public Complaints Commission is not sitting. Why is the Public Complaints Commission not sitting? Why has the Public Complaints Commission been adjourned for a week? The reason, gentlemen and ladies, is that the Solicitor General has been quoted by Mr. Proctor, the Solicitor General has not cleared the air, and the Public Complaints Commission itself wants to have a finding by the Federal Court as to the issue of bias.

Now, if the Solicitor General had done the very simple and straightforward thing that has been requested of him by all opposition parties and all fair-minded people, which was to give testimony under oath, the Public Complaints Commission could be carrying on with its business this week.

• 1550

Now, we can talk about the Public Complaints Commission and things that are happening there. I'm not going to enter that arena. I'm going to say that the reason the Public Complaints Commission is shut down is because of the alleged intemperate comments of the Solicitor General. If that isn't a good enough reason for this committee to call the Solicitor General, Mr. Proctor, and Mr. Toole to talk to us to give us their versions of the story so that the Solicitor General can simply come clean, I don't know what better reason there is.

We discussed in the House of Commons in Question Period and throughout the news media for the longest time the fact that the Solicitor General has been involved in the appearance of a subversion of this process by virtue of the lack of funding for the complainants. I can report to you that I sat at the hearings watching $2,000 per hour in legal fees go up the pipe with all those lawyers sitting on one side of the room. The only people with any legal expertise on the other side of the room were a couple of people from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

I saw Craig Jones when he ended up giving his testimony in answers to Mr. Considine, who is the commission counsel. Then in further answers to Mr. Arvay, when his unpaid counsel was answering questions to Mr. Arvay, I saw his testimony being completely twisted around. To those of you who have been called to the bar, I don't need to tell you that a lawyer in that kind of situation has the ability to twist things around, and Mr. Jones was unable to resist that twisting of comments.

The whole process is completely flawed, and the continued involvement and interference by the Solicitor General in this process is to make a joke of it.

And do you know who the losers are? People would say the student protesters are the losers. They're one of the groups. The other group that I'm very concerned about is the RCMP. That's because any fair-minded Canadian citizen taking a look at the way this process has been subverted by the Solicitor General is going to see any results from this as being tainted. The RCMP is not going to have a fair exoneration, should an exoneration be due them. The RCMP and any results that are favourable to the RCMP are going to be seen in a tainted light as a result of the actions of this government relative to this process.

The real losers in this process are the people of Canada, because they will never understand what actually happened in terms of the involvement, or lack of involvement, of the Prime Minister and his office.

I can't imagine, other than because of straight, gross political partisanship, why this committee would vote against this motion or why this committee could possibly turn away from giving the Solicitor General the opportunity to state under oath exactly what was said and done. It would clear the air for Canadians, the commission, and this committee.

Quite frankly, I suggest, with the greatest respect, that if this committee should show its gross partisanship and not—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Abbot, there's apparently a cell phone in the room. I'd ask you to extinguish all cell phones before we carry on. If you're going to talk into a cell phone, please remove yourself from the room. Thank you.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: It's just so you won't be interrupted again.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

I'm suggesting, with the greatest of respect to my colleagues, that this committee itself, along with the foreign affairs committee, which has already turned this down, will be seen as being grossly partisan and one that is simply in the business of protecting the Solicitor General rather than acting as an independent committee, which is what committees of the House are supposed to do, and getting to the bottom of this to assist this situation, the students, the police and, above all, Canadians.

The Chair: Mr. Abbot, just before I go on to the next commentator, you said that the commission had been in adjournment for a week?

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, the commission is in adjournment this week.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jim Abbott: The reason it's in adjournment this week is because of the reported conversations of Mr. Scott and the fact that the unpaid counsel for the students had brought up the question of bias. As a result, the commission itself independently decided to go to the Federal Court to have it determine if in fact there was bias or the appearance of bias.

• 1555

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): The motion tabled by my Conservative colleague warrants the support of all members of this committee, in my view. Lord knows that I'm not a Conservative and that many times, I have found myself on the opposite side of the fence. However, if ever there was a time when this legislature must set partisan politics aside, well then, surely this must be it.

It's important to make it clear that we don't want to put anyone on trial. We're not accusing anyone, not our NDP colleague, not Mr. Toole, not the Solicitor General. That is not at all the intent of this motion.

Rather, the purpose of the motion is to help the country's elected representatives help Quebeckers and Canadians to understand what in fact happened. On the one hand, a member swears that the notes he took in a public place, namely on an airplane, are accurate. I have no reason to doubt the word of a member who swears in the House of Commons that he is telling the truth.

On the other hand, another member, in this instance the Solicitor General, presents a somewhat vague and contradictory version of what transpired. If only to uncover the truth of the matter, it is important to summon the parties involved to appear before this committee to recount their respective versions of the events that transpired and to answer questions from all members of this committee which includes representatives of opposition parties who will certainly want to grill the Solicitor General. As for our Liberal colleagues opposite, I'm certain they will want to put some rather direct questions to our NDP colleague.

I also want to emphasize that no one is denying the fact that the Solicitor General discussed some highly sensitive matters in a public place. Madam Chair, I'm still quite young and I recall very clearly my law classes. If, as we were taught, a lawyer mustn't discuss his cases in a public place, a fortiori, the person responsible for Canada's national security shouldn't either.

I see no reason—I'm choosing my words carefully—other than partisanship why this committee should not support our Conservative colleague's motion which, I repeat, is not aimed at putting anyone on trial, but rather at getting to the bottom of this incident for our benefit and for the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Grose.

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

I am going to speak here on behalf of the people of Canada. This is a very nice game we're playing here, as to whether someone talked when they shouldn't have and whether they talked in a louder voice than they should have. Having been on a Dash-8, I don't know how anyone could monitor a conversation. I can't monitor a conversation with my seatmate.

But that having been said, we're looking like our neighbours to the south. Who really cares? Let's get back to the business of the country. We are playing politics here, and that is not what we're paid to do. This is a thing where someone should have done something and someone should not have done something. But at the end of the game—and that's what it is, a game—what does it profit the people of this country? Let's stop this nonsense and get on with the business of the country. The voters will decide at the next election.

Thank you.

• 1600

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll come to you not as a lawyer or anything else but as a former airline worker over the last 18 years.

First of all, the honourable gentlemen makes a point by saying let's get back to the business of Canada. The business of Canada is truth in parliamentarians, and if we can't have truth or even the perception of truth in the position of Solicitor General, then we as parliamentarians have a major problem in order to get back to the business of Canada.

The member for Palliser stood up in the House and swore an oath to the Canadian people that what he said transpired on the flight of October 1 is true. He even went outside the House, where he has no immunity, and called the Solicitor General a liar and indicated that if he is wrong they could sue him. So far there has been nothing from the Solicitor General or from the PM's Office, for that matter. It's an awfully courageous stand to say that outside the House of Commons, knowing full well the ramifications if he's wrong. You know and I know he's a stand-up guy. He's about as honest as any person who has ever graced these halls. The fact of the matter is the truth isn't going to come out.

The unfortunate part is that what he has done—I'll refer to him now as the member for Fredericton—has not only disgraced the position of the Solicitor General but also has brought dishonour to all parliamentarians. All the calls I've taken, many from police officers within the Atlantic Canada region, have said, “The problem is that all of you lie, every single one of you, to protect your butts whenever you can,” and, Madam Chair, that's the problem. What he has done, as the member said, has brought us into American-style politics, where if you can lie long enough and be dishonest and spin stuff around long enough, people will eventually believe it.

I challenge the Liberal members across this table today. You can either become members of Parliament representing your Canadian constituents or sheep of the system. You have that opportunity.

I cannot see one reason why you wouldn't allow your colleague, the member for Fredericton, to stand before this committee and why he wouldn't want to come here to clear his name. It's unfortunate he's not even willing to volunteer to come here, that you have to present a motion to even bring this forward. If there's absolutely nothing wrong and nothing to hide from the Canadian people, then why isn't he here now? That's the question I bring to you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Let me just answer that last question. It's because this committee determines its agenda, not ministers. Ministers can ask, they can be asked, but they don't come unless we invite them.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Chair, first of all, we have to ask ourselves why exactly things have come to this. We have been talking about this incident for almost three weeks now. Why has the Foreign Affairs Committee said it wants to delve further into this matter, why have we already attempted to do so, and why are we debating yet another motion today?

Earlier, a Liberal party member tried to answer that question, but with all due respect, we can't compare what's happening in the United States with this particular case. We are talking about two completely different situations here. It is not a matter of wanting to interfere in someone's private life, but rather a question of scrutinizing the actions of a minister who oversees a very important department, namely the office of the Solicitor General of Canada. It's not the same thing at all. We're not invading his privacy, but rather examining his actions as Solicitor General of Canada. Above all, we have some questions about the discretion that a minister should have exercised when dealing with specific matters.

If we find ourselves in this situation today, it is because of one person, and that is the Solicitor General himself. Had he answered the very first question concerning this incident put to him in the House, and admitted: "Yes, I did discuss that particular matter with Mr. So and so, our conversation was related to my duties as minister and I have nothing to apologize for", then most likely the matter would have been put to rest then and there.

• 1605

Why are we still talking about this today, three weeks after the incident occurred? Because the minister lied in the House of Commons that very first day when he said he did not even recall having discussed this matter or whether his seat mate was a man, a woman or an inanimate object for that matter, whereas a few hours later, his memory had returned. Moreover, as it happens, the person in question is a good friend of the minister. That's why things have come to this.

If he lied once, we have to wonder what exactly he said to Mr. Toole. Did he disclose facts other than those relayed to us through the NDP member? I don't know the answer to that question, but I do think that it warrants further debate, Madam Chair. Some facts need to be verified. We've been discussing this for three weeks. All of the newspapers have carried this story. Certain allegations have been made, along with some contradictory statements. Some of the facts reported may be more are less accurate, but some things still need to be looked into.

Secondly, Madam Chair, we must also ask ourselves whether the Justice Committee has the right to enquire into this matter. While the other members were speaking, I consulted the Standing Orders of the House of Commons which confirmed that the committee can indeed send for witnesses, enquire into matters affecting departments for which the committee has responsibility and carry out studies. This committee is responsible for overseeing the activities of two departments, namely Justice and the Solicitor General. We have a duty to ensure that these departments comply with the law and follow the rules and that the ministers holding office are worthy of their positions and do their job well. This duty rests with us as elected representatives and as members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, we do indeed, Madam Chair, have the power to enquire into this affair.

We also need to ask ourselves what purpose would it serve us to conduct that inquiry. I would hope government members asked themselves that same question before coming here today. What purpose would it serve to conduct an inquiry and to hear testimony from individuals into what has come to be known as Peppergate?

In my view, it is extremely important that we get to the bottom of things. What actually happened? What was said on this aircraft? Mr. Toole, who signed the letter that I had earlier, should come and explain to us exactly what transpired. If he has nothing to hide, then it will be easy for him to testify. The NDP member should also appear before the committee and he could be cross-examined so that we have some answers to the questions that we have been asking ourselves for three weeks, questions which have gone unanswered. We could also send for the minister. His job and his credibility are on the line. If I were in his shoes, I would certainly appreciate an opportunity to defend myself in a forum of my peers and to tell people: “look, what people are saying isn't true; this is what really happened and I'm prepared to stake my seat on it.” That's what the minister should do.

Madam Chair, you've been in politics even longer than I have. I'm convinced that politics is really a matter of perception.

[English]

The Chair: I'm older than you are.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: What are people currently thinking? That the minister hasn't disclosed the whole truth, that he doesn't want to explain his actions and that he has something to hide. Furthermore, given that the Prime Minister is involved in this affair, the minister seems to want to protect the Prime Minister. That is the impression people currently have. We are not talking about an ordinary member of Parliament, but rather about the Solicitor General of Canada. It's very important that we not lose sight of that fact.

When the Liberal Party was in opposition and the Conservatives were in power, you were considerably more thin- skinned when it came to conflict of interest issues, inequities, injustice, truth or lies told in the House of Commons. I recall the time when the Liberals demanded and secured the resignation of a minister because he had engaged in a telephone conversation with a commissioner. The matter before us today is even more serious, in my view, but the government wants to turn a blind eye.

I have one final comment, Madam Chair. In the government's 1993 Red Book and during the 1997 election campaign, there was much talk of validating the work of MPs. That seemed to be in extremely important concern of your party.

• 1610

This is a good opportunity for you today—and I'm directing my comments specifically to the governing Liberal members—to stop being wall flowers and agreeing to everything the government tells you to do and instead, to say: “We are members of Parliament and we will do our job properly. There is something fishy about all of this and we want to clear up any misunderstandings. We will try to protect our minister and our government, but let's go ahead and conduct an inquiry because we have nothing to hide”. This would, in my view, validate the work that members do, because as things now stand, being a member of Parliament, particularly a Liberal member, is not overly validating.

This is a good opportunity for you to restore our trust in the Solicitor General, to prove to us that he did not suffer from a case of loose lips, as some columnists seem to think, and that he was simply doing his job, if that was indeed the case. If you know for a fact that the opposite is true, then I can understand you, but in order to validate your work as MPs, you have a duty to support this motion if you wish to be consistent insofar as your role as MP is concerned.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks.

I'm going to go to Mr. Randy White, followed by John McKay and Jacques Saada. I will then go back to Peter MacKay for the last word. Unless someone else has something burning to say, I'm going to close the list off there.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): I won't be long, Madam Chair. The outcome of this is obvious, isn't it? It's a foregone conclusion, actually.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] —the press.

Mr. Randy White: Well, I'll comment on that in a minute.

I guess the question is where it's going to happen if it's not going to happen here. This issue will not be taken up at the hearing. We tried it at the foreign affairs committee. Of course, all the Liberal members voted against it and all the opposition members voted for it.

One of the arguments the Liberal MPs used in foreign affairs was that the timing was wrong. The Liberals said this whole issue was going to be looked at during the hearings in Vancouver so, gee, why should we do it now when it's going to be taken care of? I then put an amendment in at that committee, saying that we'd bring these folks to the foreign affairs meeting subsequent to the hearing if it is not dealt with, but they still defeated it. So it's kind of obvious this is going to go down in flames.

We took it to procedure and House affairs, and I believe we properly established that Standing Order 108(2) does give the authority for this committee to handle it. So I don't know. This is the third committee in which I've listened to this, and it's the third committee in which I already knew the outcome even before the hands went up.

I do want to address just one issue, and that's the one comment made by my colleague on the other side, Madam Chair. He asked who really cares. This is really more than the Solicitor General saying some things on an airplane—and he obviously really said them, because nobody could make that up, writing that kind of business down. It is more than that. It's about the Prime Minister's activities. It's about the Solicitor General, who has contact with the Prime Minister, making presumptuous statements. It's about the right to protest. It's about the removal of pepper spray from common, ordinary, law-abiding citizens, but turning around and spraying those very people with pepper spray because they're protesting. I guess it's all about who really cares.

If I were the police, and particularly the individual called Hughie, I would be caring. If I were him, I would want to know why it has already been presumed that I am guilty or I am the fall guy. Now, I suppose that could be reasonably disposed of if the Solicitor General was here and gave us his version of it, and if Mr. Proctor was here and gave us his version of it. My friends opposite aren't about to let that happen, though, and I guess that's par for the course in this House of Commons. The committees are actually a mirror image of the House of Commons, aren't they? We know what the outcome of the votes will be in a majority government.

• 1615

So that's all I'm going to say, Madam Chair, because this side already knows what the outcome of this meeting is. It's truly unfortunate that those who were involved, those who have basically been presumed guilty by the Solicitor General, will probably never know what he really said.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. White.

John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): This is a power and control game, isn't it? I want to speak about this motion because, as you rightly point out, Madam Chair, this has a great deal to do with whether or not the committee controls its own agenda.

I don't have a great deal of control over what happens in the House of Commons, particularly during Question Period. The gentlemen opposite and their representatives decide what is or is not of relevance in Question Period. One day in the week prior to the rising of the House, I think there were fifteen questions asked of the Solicitor General. I don't know how many questions were asked today, but apparently this is the priority of the opposition—it's a strangely united opposition, but it is still united—and it begs a question of priorities. We have turmoil in global markets, we have a great deal of angst about tax cuts versus EI cuts, etc., but apparently the priority of the members opposite is to deal with these issues.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You should look at the priorities of ordinary Canadians, then.

Mr. John McKay: Now, I don't have a great deal of ability to control that agenda, but I do—

An hon. member: This is where you do have some control.

Mr. John McKay: —have some influence over the agenda of this committee. In that respect, my view is that there are about a thousand more issues of greater significance and importance than this to be dealt with in what is a very limited amount of time.

Madam Chair, I'd like to refer you to an article written by Hugh Winsor on October 16. He was commenting on this and on the member opposite's father, Mr. Elmer MacKay. Mr. Winsor said:

—there a delicious irony, a new version of the old adage about fame eating its children.

Former Conservative MP Elmer MacKay has had a long association with the RCMP, in many different roles, including that of its boss. The current tap, if true, would not even be the first time the former solicitor-general has been a target.

—

To appreciate the ironies, we need some scene-setting. Mr. MacKay first came to national prominence as an opposition politician in the 1970s by making several startling disclosures in the House of Commons based on Mountie sources.

It then goes on to outline a couple of things with respect to Mr. Hart, with respect to Russians, etc.

I don't know that we need to have this committee carry on the family business of the MacKay family. It seems to me that if we in fact allow this to go forward, though, this is simply pure, unadulterated politics. It should therefore be dismissed out of hand. It is nothing more, nothing less, and it is a complete waste and misuse of our very valuable our time.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Saada, and then Peter MacKay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): First of all, barring one final check, I believe the committee is sitting this week. Next week, it will be adjourned for one week. I wanted to correct something Mr. Abbott said.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues. I will try not to engage in partisan politics, but I can't help but react when someone accuses me of partisanship when I see that opposite, not one member is breaking rank. Who is really guilty of partisan politics here?

• 1620

If the committee were to call in people like the Solicitor General and the NDP member who brought this whole affair to light, then it would be doing two things.

Firstly, it would be sanctioning a method of gathering information which is somewhat unethical. When someone eavesdrops on a private conversation and then publicly discloses that conversation subsequently, there is no question in my mind that this is unethical behaviour.

Secondly, it would be asking the parties involved, in particular the Solicitor General, to speak publicly about a purely private conversation.

For these two reasons, there is no way that I can support this motion.

My colleague opposite talks about validating the work of MPs. Mr. Bellehumeur mentioned that the job MPs do needs to be recognized and I don't dispute that. However, does this justify this course of action on the part of the committee? Is this justification for a member to use his status to make public conversations of a private nature? Ethically, do we have the right to do this? Who brought this whole issue of the Public Complaints Commission into the spotlight? Not the Solicitor General, but the person who disclosed his private conversation, namely the NDP member. He is the one who has acted in a manner that calls into question the integrity of the Public Complaints Commission.

There is a lot more I could say, but I will conclude on this note. Mr. White, my Reform Party colleague, referred not only to certain individuals who could be called before the committee further to this motion, but also to the commission and to everything that occurred at the APEC Conference and so forth.

At least he is consistent, just as his party has been from the very beginning, or at least for the past several weeks. Everything the opposition has done has been done with the intention of discrediting the Public Complaints Commission. All of these measures have been a systematic attempt to pull the rug out from under an extremely credible and important institution, all for dubious, short-term political gains. I refuse to play that game, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks.

The final word will be from Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to respond, in order, to some of the comments that have been made here, the public aspect of this emerged the moment the Solicitor General uttered those words in such a public way in a public place. That's when it became public, not with the reporting by the member for Palliser.

As for Americanizing our process, what's at the root of the issue here is the potential for political interference, and the Prime Minister giving direct orders to a public police force to trample on the basic human rights of students and their right to peaceful protest. Those issues are far more fundamental—far more fundamental—than questions about the sex life of an American president. I suggest that they are far more important.

In response to comments from the NDP member, the chair herself has recognized the fact that the Solicitor General, by his own volition, can volunteer, can contact this committee and ask to appear. There's no procedural impediment to his coming here, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Nobody suggested that there is.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, I interpreted you wrongly, then, Madam Chair.

There's no question that this is an adversarial process that we're living in. At the same time, this still comes down to the issue of credibility and the ability of a minister to perform his task publicly or privately with the confidence not only of those in his department but of the Canadian people.

• 1625

Madam Chair, finally, I have to take great personal exception to the comments of the member opposite from Scarborough. He has wondered if I am partaking in some sort of fame-seeking attempt to live up to my father's reputation. Now, I want to say this. If exposing government corruption is my father's legacy, if that is a mantle he carries, I'm very proud to continue that tradition. And I'll tell you this. This entire motion is aimed at truth seeking, credibility, and public confidence and nothing else. I'm not grandstanding.

I also want to respond to a comment made by the member now shaking his head, and that is that I went out and sought public attention for the conversation that took place in the gym. He might want to ask his own members how that became public knowledge. I was asked about it at a scrum, and unlike others, I wasn't prepared to lie about what took place.

Those are my comments, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. I assume you want a recorded vote.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. MacKay moves that this committee summon the following individuals to testify under oath before the committee: Honourable Andy Scott, PC, MP; Mr. Dick Proctor, MP; and Mr. Frederick D. Toole, Q.C.

Yes, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I don't wish to delay this process unduly. I would simply like to have some explanation. I think my colleague from the Bloc Québécois has invoked the regulations pertaining to committees to establish if we would be entitled to consider such a motion. I don't read anything here that would allow us to do that. Please clarify it for me.

The Chair: It's my view as chair—and that's the view that counts when it comes to ruling on these things—that the motion itself is in order under Standing Order 108(2), which allows us to take up any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the departments we're attached to. Boy, is that a bad paraphrasing of it. But in any event, I think it's in order, or I would have ruled earlier on that. It's similar to a motion we had last week that I ruled was in order as well.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

The Chair: The motion failed.

Mr. Randy White: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Randy White: I thought one of our members over here voted yea.

The Chair: I think you said nay.

Mr. Randy White: No.

The Chair: I think two said nay, and the others said no. That's the way I heard it, anyway. I was looking at each of them as they did it.

We're going to go in camera now to discuss future business. You have a motion, so you might want to stay for that, Randy.

Mr. Randy White: Yes.

The Chair: We'll just wait for a few minutes while we clear the room.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]