FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 8, 1998

• 0910

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Members, I'd like to call the meeting to order. I'd like to thank you very much for re-electing me chairman. I appreciate that honour very much. I think we'll have a very fruitful year, une année fructueuse.

I'd like to dire bonjour à Monsieur Patry to say welcome back to the committee. I'd like to welcome Mr. Pickard to the committee and the Honourable Sheila Finestone. Mr. Stinson isn't here, but I'd like to welcome him as well. I'm sure we'll all work together very well.

With that said, we can now start to work right away. You'll see that the first order of business is the resolutions, the notice of Mr. Robinson's motions followed by Mr. Turp's motion.

Mr. Robinson, I think you wanted to make an observation about your second motion. Do you want to speak to both of them at once or take them individually?

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Perhaps we can deal with them separately. I will deal with the second motion first, if I may.

Following consultation with the chairman and the clerk of the committee, I'm suggesting a slight rewording of the second motion. The second motion should read that this committee urge the government to provide legal assistance to the complainants appearing before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. With that suggested rewording, I'd just like to make a few comments on the substance of the motion.

The Chairman: I would have had to rule the motion out of order if it had been stated in its original form, but I'm advised that wording is acceptable.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not going to take a lot of the committee's time on this. I think members of the committee will understand the profound importance of this issue. At a meeting of the committee last week, we decided we were not prepared to look into the issues that arose from the events that took place both before the APEC summit in November 1997 and during the summit. Rather, we would ask the Public Complaints Commission to do its work and try to get at the truth of what actually happened.

In making that decision, this committee, by a majority, said it believes the role of the Public Complaints Commission is absolutely critical. If that role is critical, and I agree it is, it is particularly critical that those who appear before the committee should be in a position to present their case as effectively as possible.

There are at least ten lawyers currently before that committee acting on behalf of the RCMP and the Government of Canada. Just this week another lawyer, David Scott, a very eminent counsel, was hired to represent the federal government, funded by the Government of Canada, of course.

The student complainants who are appearing before this commission have received no funds whatsoever for legal assistance. Their lawyers, Joe Arvay QC and Cameron Ward, have been acting pro bono for them because they believe deeply in this, but they can't continue to do that. It's not fair to them and it's just practically not possible for them to do that.

I spoke yesterday evening with Joe Arvay, who's acting on behalf of Craig Jones, and he indicated he will have to withdraw as counsel at the end of this week if legal assistance is not forthcoming for the student complainants. I assume that would be the same for Cameron Ward acting on behalf of a number of other complainants.

This summer, the Federal Court of Canada released a judgment. Judge Barbara Reed released a judgment in which she said that without state-funded legal representation, the complainants or applicants will be at a great disadvantage; there will not be a level playing field.

The Public Complaints Commission, as of yesterday morning, has once again written to the government. The complaints commission wrote a letter earlier to the government, in July of last year. It's signed by the three members of the commission and was sent yesterday to Andy Scott, the Solicitor General. It is to Mr. Scott, re funding for complainants at the APEC hearing. I quote: “On July 31, 1998, this commission wrote a letter to you asking that the complainants be granted funding.”

• 0915

That's from the commission, saying they believe the students should have funding. You refused—that's what the letter says. Then it says they will make the best efforts they can to ensure unrepresented parties are treated with dignity and fairness.

But they then said this in the letter yesterday that was sent to the minister:

However, in the eyes of the public, the scope and importance of this hearing has risen so much that public confidence in our findings and recommendations may require separate funded legal representation for the complainants. There are important fundamental issues about who we are as Canadians at stake in this hearing. We urge you to review the funding issue.

That's the commission appealing to the government, and I want to appeal to members of this committee. When I raised this issue in the House with the minister this week, the minister indicated he had not yet received this letter but he was reviewing the matter.

I believe it is important that we as a committee send a strong signal to our government that we want this commission to be able to work and we want it to be a fair commission. The only way it will be a fair commission—and it is clearly an adversarial process now—is if the students have equitable, legal representation.

I have extra copies of this letter and will be happy to make them available to members of the committee.

[Translation]

Unfortunately, the letter is in English only.

[English]

This is not a partisan issue. We had a tough debate last week on the role of this committee and the role of the commission, but having said that we believe the commission should do its work. If the commission itself and the federal court are appealing for proper funding for the students to be able to have their day in court, and if, as the Federal Court of Canada judge, Barbara Reed said, without that funding there will not be a level playing field, I appeal to members of this committee to send a strong unanimous message to our government that we as a committee want to get at the truth. Part of that clearly involves fundamental issues of foreign policy, and there should be a fair hearing, which means equitable legal representation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Is this request, as explained, for all people appearing, or is this just for Craig?

Mr. Svend Robinson: The request for legal funding is effectively for two legal counsels. There is one counsel, Mr. Cameron Ward, who is appearing on behalf of a number of students, and Joe Arvay is appearing on behalf of Craig Jones. The Public Complaints Commission request to the government is on behalf of both.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Are there only two?

Mr. Svend Robinson: There are two legal counsels, that's correct.

The Chairman: This motion is so much more wide open than that. There could be 25 or 30 complainants. We could run up a $20 million bill on this. Are you cognizant of that? I gather that's the thrust of your question, Madam Finestone.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Yes, it is.

The Chairman: Having been through the blood inquiry and some of the other...

Hon. Sheila Finestone: No, my point was quite that. Notwithstanding that I am somewhat sympathetic to the observations you have made, is this request strictly for these two groups? What happens if other groups appear? Is there an expectation that they too should get legal counsel?

This is a commission that is supposed to be far less formal in its presentation and is supposed to have a different format for interrogatory approaches. I really would like to understand the extent of this request and have a further understanding of the narrow perspective that's being presented.

The Chairman: Can I make a suggestion? I think what will happen here is we'll have a series of observations and you will want to reply to all of them.

• 0920

I have both Mr. Cannis and Ms. Beaumier from the government side. Then I have Mr. Turp and Mr. Mills as well. Maybe we could hear from Mr. Cannis and Madam Beaumier, then you could take seriatim any observations, and then we'll go back to Mr. Turp and Mr. Mills.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to do that, but perhaps to save some time and debate, I just might indicate that I would be quite prepared to entertain an amendment that would add after “Public Complaints Commission” the words “as requested by the commission in their letter of October 6”.

That, Mr. Chairman, would have the effect of making it very clear that this is not an open-ended motion but one that is responding specifically to the request of the commission. I'm certainly quite prepared to support an amendment that would clarify that if it would provide some assistance to the committee.

The Chairman: Just speaking as chair, Mr. Robinson, in looking at the letter, there's nothing in this letter that indicates there are only two complainants or two counsels. It says “complainants”. The letter seems open-ended to me.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): But with that amendment, doesn't that fix that problem?

The Chairman: No, because it says this is pursuant to the letter. If you read the letter, it seems to be open-ended. You seem to have an understanding that there are only two involved, but nobody else except you has that understanding.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, if I may—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —it seems to me that the Solicitor General will have a pretty good understanding. The letter was written to him. Why don't we get him to provide us with a copy of this letter?

The Chairman: Of this letter?

Mr. Charlie Penson: It's the letter that was written to him by the commission requesting legal help on—

Mr. Bob Mills: It was July 31.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —July 31. It will clarify that and we'll know what exactly was being asked for.

The Chairman: That may be, but it would be nicer if we could actually deal with this matter this morning and get it going.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Why doesn't somebody make a phone call and see if their office could supply us with that?

Mr. Svend Robinson: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to be difficult here; I'm trying to facilitate the work of the committee.

The Chairman: I understand that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: We can hear debate. I will try to draft this in the context of an amendment. As for the commission itself, in terms of the complainants being granted funding, there are no additional parties who will appear before the committee. No additional complainants will be requesting funding.

A voice: It doesn't say that.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Is that a list that has been set now?

Mr. Svend Robinson: The list is set. The hearings have started. If additional complainants were to come forward and say they wanted funding, then the commission would have to make an additional request. That has nothing to do with this request.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I will try to draft something that will narrowly and precisely confirm that we are dealing with the request for legal funding for the complainants. Perhaps I can say, Mr. Chairman, in trying to be helpful, that these are the complainants represented at this time by legal counsels Cameron Ward and Joseph Arvay. That would make it very clear and precise that we're talking about the complainants represented at this time by legal counsels Cameron Ward and Joseph Arvay. I will try to draft that wording.

The Chairman: Why don't you work on that? We'll go to Mr. Cannis and Ms. Beaumier.

Mr. John Cannis: Mine is a short question, Mr. Chairman. Just let me comment that I do agree that it's too open-ended in terms of the contents here.

The question I have is for our colleague across the way. Why did Joseph Arvay undertake this and then, in a very short period of time, decide he wanted to be paid? You indicated in your presentation that he undertook the assignment on a no-fee basis, and then, in a very short period of time, he had a change of heart.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I may answer through the chair, Mr. Chairman, this was not a short period of time. Mr. Arvay had been representing Craig Jones for many months. He is one of the most distinguished counsels in British Columbia. He represented them from the start of the hearings. There's a wealth of work, a whole range of work, long before the hearings in representing Mr. Jones, and he made it clear from the beginning that obviously, as a senior legal counsel, he would not be able to continue acting pro bono for months.

These hearings, according to commission counsel, could go on for four to six months.

Mr. John Cannis: Surely a professional of his stature knew that this was not a one-week, one-month, or three-month hearing.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Of course he knew, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John Cannis: It's just odd that he would undertake this and then all of a sudden decide that—

Mr. Svend Robinson: No. Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: I'm trying to avoid this back-and-forth process or we'll never get out of here. Have you finished your observation?

Mr. John Cannis: I'm finished, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

Madam Beaumier.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): I'm just reiterating what Mrs. Finestone has said. You say “complainants”. I understand there are 120 of them. Are they going to each want—

Mr. Bob Mills: That includes police and everybody. That's all the witnesses.

• 0925

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Okay, but I don't know the number of complainants. Is each complainant then going to want representation?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm redrafting the amendment.

The Chairman: We'll see if we can come up with an answer to that. In the meantime, I'd like to go to Mr. Turp, then Mr. Mills, then Mr. Reed.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): We intend to back this motion. The real issue here is representation and the rights of students to effective legal remedy.

Yesterday, I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice—I believe Ms. Finestone was there as well—and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, Ms. Bakopanos, reminded us that the students in question have rights and that, equally important in our democracy, which I compared to democracy in Indonesia where the students brought about the fall of Mr. Suharto, was the fact that they can seek some redress. You know as well as I do that recourse without legal aid or attorneys is useless.

When we look at the legislation behind the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, we note that the parties have complete latitude to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and make observations, but obviously, the representation is effective and useful only if an attorney who is familiar with the rules of procedure that apply to an administrative tribunal such as this is present.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate for our committee to call on the government to acquiesce to the commission's request that the necessary funding and legal aid be provided to students. For many reasons, and for this one in particular, one that even the parliamentary secretary to the Minister Justice has given, these students should receive some legal aid. This would demonstrate our concern for providing proper representation in this matter, because the real issue is the right to freedom of expression at an international conference, a conference where foreign policy objectives appear to have taken precedence over the students' fundamental right to freedom of expression and association.

I think it would be worth your while to read an article by Ross Howard and Jane Armstrong on the APEC debacle that appeared in the Globe and Mail. It seems the President of the University of British Columbia was told that the government and the Prime Minister's Office were entitled to have a say in the student protests, and one student described how he had been invited or urged to remove signs bearing the following message: Free speech, democracy, human rights. Because he refused to remove these signs, he was arrested. Think about it. He was arrested for putting up signs containing the words free speech, democracy, human rights. These students deserve to have legal representation because we are dealing with a foreign affairs matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Finestone.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, on a point of order, that's an assumption, Daniel; that's not a finding. I really object to your considering that this is a true analysis of what took place. It may well be, but that's part of the decision that's to be taken. So I don't feel that this is an argument that can stand up. Until it's proven, you don't know that this happened.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Ms. Finestone, that's something that was alleged...

[English]

The Chairman: I take that as a point of debate rather than a point of order. It may be a valid point, and you got it in very slyly.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, we wish to endorse Mr. Robinson's motion.

The Chairman: Fine. Thank you very much.

• 0930

[English]

Mr. Mills, please.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't intend to discuss the case. I don't think that's what we're here for, to discuss who's right and who's wrong.

I think what we really are here to discuss is the perception the public has as to what's happening. The perception the public has is that you have the RCMP funded fully by taxpayers to fight this case, you have other witnesses funded by the taxpayers provincially to fight this case, and you have about 10 students who do not have a source of funding. At this point all of the 125 or 126 witnesses who are going to be called are represented by legal counsel. However, the students are not being funded by anybody. So we have these lawyers who are with the students saying, “This thing's going on for six months and we just can't sustain that sort of thing.” Probably they made a mistake, as Mr. Cannis pointed out, and assumed the students would get some sort of assistance. However, I don't know that.

The point is that in order to be upheld, law must be perceived to be totally fair on all sides. I see this motion as pertaining to those students who have come forward. I think there's a group of 10 and another person who have come forward and said, “We have something to say; we have complaints against the RCMP.” They don't have funding. What will happen if the legal counsel withdraws and those students are left to fight it on their own? Whether or not there's justice, the perception will be that you have an unfair fight.

So I think this motion is very much in order. I think we should tidy it up so that it clearly refers to the students who are unfunded who have come forward, two situations, and those people should receive help from the taxpayer so that they can have fair representation by legal counsel, both sides against each other. That will be perceived to be totally up front. That's what this issue is all about. For that reason we support this motion. I believe we're doing this case a favour and the government a favour by letting it be perceived as being totally above board.

The Chairman: Before we continue with the debate, let me make a recommendation. Mr. Robinson has suggested an amendment to his resolution, which I presume will clear up this issue. Rather than have us formally vote on amendments, if everyone agrees, I will propose this is the motion for debate. But if anybody objects, we can go through the normal formal route.

Mr. Robinson's resolution would now read:

That this Committee urge the government to provide legal assistance to the student complainants presently represented at the RCMP Public Complaints Commission by legal counsel Joseph Arvay and Cameron Ward, as recommended by the Commission in their letter of October 6, 1998, to the Solicitor General.

Clearly, in my view, it restricts it to two lawyers and not a battery of lawyers that might come along. That's certainly the intent of your resolution.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It is. Just briefly, what the amendment does is respond to the precise concern Mrs. Finestone raised, that we should be specific. I believe Ms. Beaumier raised it as well. It refers to the existing student complainants presently represented by legal counsel Cameron Ward and Joseph Arvay. In other words, it does not include new complainants. It's much narrower and focused, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that responds to the concern that has been raised.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that it doesn't include other requests that might come forward next week?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: That's what Mr. Robinson—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It doesn't say that. This motion says only those two, but it leaves open the possibility next week—

The Chairman: I think it's clear from the discussion we've had and from the resolution as it is before us that this is restricted to two counsel to two different sets of complainants. If next week 40 new complainants come forward, this resolution would have nothing to do with them. They'd have to stand on their own feet and argue.

Let's not get into a debate. That's the purpose of what we want to discuss. So we'll either accept or not accept that recommendation.

• 0935

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Didn't Mr. Mills say the list was now closed? That's what I understood.

Mr. Bob Mills: The list at their first meeting is closed, yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But a request can be made.

A voice: We will have set a precedent.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But is it fair, Mr. Chairman, to say yes now and no next week before the same case?

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian, that may or may not be a view you have that will influence you to vote one way or another on the resolution, but it doesn't go to the wording of the resolution. I suggest to you that the wording is presently clear, that it restricts it to two.

If you believe this will open the door and that it's the slippery slope argument we often face, then that's the logical reason to vote one way or the other. But I suggest to you that's a matter of debate rather than a point of order.

So I'd like to go back to the list and go to Mr. Reed. I beg your pardon—

Mr. Charlie Penson: We have a new motion, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I thought you had suggested that we see if there's support for this new revised motion. If there is, we may not have to go to the rest of the debate on it.

The Chairman: No, I didn't say that. I said, is there support for me putting this resolution forward and not having to go to the formal thing of voting as amended.

Mr. Charlie Penson: How did you determine that?

The Chairman: I didn't see anybody objecting to that. I take it we are now debating this resolution rather than the original one put forward by Mr. Robinson. We sort of understand what this resolution's about. It's a much more restricted one than the other one.

So I'm going to pass now to the list as I had it, which is Mr. Reed, Mr. Pickard, and then Mr. Penson.

Mr. Reed, sir.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This is an issue that I had experience with in my former incarnation as a member of the legislature of the province of Ontario. I heard all of the same arguments being put. The government of the day chose to fund advocates on the particular issue concerned; they found in favour of funding. What it did was open Pandora's box and create a whole battery of professional advocates, professional assemblers of briefs, who did very well, thank you, with the open-ended nature of the funding.

It seems to me that if we accept such a resolution at this time, there is nothing to stop, first of all, the advocates, the lawyers, extending their need, if you like, for the assembly of information, and perhaps extending the length of the hearings. Then the people who are concerned about the budgets of the country would be back on our tail in a year's time, in six month's time, asking when this carnage is going to stop. We've pulled the slide on the feed bin and the grain is still running out.

So I personally, and as I say, it comes from my own experience of having gone through it—and there's nothing to stop anybody from coming back to this committee on another issue at another time and saying, “You did it before, now you have to do it again”. Otherwise it's not fair.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this motion.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Pickard, sir.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I share Mr. Reed's concerns, and one came to mind. As soon as we pay the expenses of someone who challenges the government or challenges any authority within the government in a legal suit, why are we not obligated at that point to pay for the top lawyers in the country when someone feels they haven't been treated appropriately?

• 0940

This particular case is one where there are people who feel they were not treated appropriately, and I certainly understand that. I also understand that they have been able to secure the services of two of the top lawyers in British Columbia. The question comes, are we going to start writing blank cheques for legal services for anyone who challenges police officers in this country, anyone who challenges a decision of any government body?

I really feel we're moving in a direction of paying both sides. Someone asked why would you pay the RCMP. I still, quite frankly, think they're in the service of this country. Why would you pay the government? I think they're fighting for the rights, the well-being, of all Canadian citizens.

Mr. Bob Mills: Not from the pictures we saw on TV.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: So I do think there is a vested interest for Canadians to make sure there's fairness in this case, and there's no question about that. But when we come to start paying both sides of legal arguments, I have a problem.

We're not just paying both sides here. We don't have any control over who the lawyer is, what the lawyer's bills are. Any time I have hired someone to do a job I know what those costs are. I have some say in what those costs are. We were told this morning that there are months and months and months of back bills these lawyers would love to submit. I don't know what we're talking about in legal costs, but I'm assuming from what I've heard across the way that we're talking about some pretty steep legal costs.

The other question I have is this. Is there not anything in British Columbia or in this country that would help someone without funds be provided with legal services?

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's a federal commission.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: As a result, why are we here at this committee trying to deal with an issue that is in fact another area of responsibility in another area?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Penson, then Mr. Strahl, Mr. Sauvageau, and Mr. Mills, and then Madam Finestone, and then we'll put it to the vote because I think we will have heard everybody.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a chance to respond at the end, if I may.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Chairman, I think we're talking about a very basic issue here. It's a matter of civil rights. We're talking about students who simply don't have the resources to pay for lawyers to defend them in this case, to defend their argument. I think we just have to go to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission's letter and reread the first paragraph. It's a very powerful letter in my view, Mr. Chairman. They are requesting funding for complainants to the APEC hearing.

In the second sentence he says they still believe that all unrepresented parties will be treated with dignity and fairness throughout the hearing. They have just asked that the complainants be granted funding. That's a very powerful argument, in my view.

If the commission hearing this feels the students don't have the ability to have a fair hearing by not having funding for legal counsel, members opposite may vote against this, but it seems to me they're on the wrong side of this issue. Students deserve our support to defend the very basic fabric of Canadian life, and that's civil liberty.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): There are just two or three points I'd like to add to the debate. One is that I'd urge the Liberal members—hardly any of them are listening—to consider that to be consistent...the Liberal government has restored funding to the court challenges program for exactly this sort of reason. You do it because there are occasions when someone who is flat broke and unable to represent themselves needs help to do that. That's why you did it, I am assuming. You folks did that. You restored the funding to the court challenges program for that reason.

These folks are in the same boat. They need funding because they're students, they don't have anything, and although they've been able to go on a lick and a promise so far, they aren't going to be able to go on the long term.

The second thing I would say in response to the concern about the cost is that this motion—I don't have the new wording—urges the government to provide legal assistance, and it restricts it. I don't think by urging the government to provide legal assistance you're saying, by the way, it's a blank cheque, and you have to pay every bill they might concoct. You urge the government, and if the government would agree to do this then of course they negotiate that. They say it's not a blank cheque, it's so much a day, it's fee for service. There is a restriction, naturally—there has to be—and there is even for the government lawyers.

• 0945

So you negotiate that. It would happen after the government agreed to this, but there's no saying that it's an open-ended thing. There would be reasonable expenses, and reasonable expenses can be negotiated.

Lastly, yesterday the Solicitor General gave the impression in the House of Commons that he had increased the funding for this complaints commission, so you don't have to worry about it. What he didn't say is that although the commission's funding has been increased, not a nickel of it went to the complainants we're talking about here. So although he talked about a $600,000 increase in the budget for the public complaints commission, none of it, not a penny of it, went to the people who have no money. To be fair, although the budget went up $600,000, not a sou went to the poor folks who have nothing. It went to the commission.

Given the scope and importance of this hearing and the fact that public confidence sways in the balance of how the public perceives justice being done here, I think the government would be wise—and we'd be wise to urge the government—to be judicious here, to be careful. If you increase the funding by $600,000 for the PCC but there is nothing for the complainants, it's a very bad message to send. It is like saying we'll throw all the resources...and there's lots more available for one side, but there's nothing for the other. That's a very bad argument to take into the public forum.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid our Liberal colleagues may be writing too many blank checks. They don't even seem to question their own views or their own vision of the future. Their position seems to be: “Well, the minister told us to say that, so that's what were going to say”.

If our Liberal colleagues have any respect for this country's laws and rules, they should at least take the time... I realize this won't change anything, because if they wish to keep their place on the committee or go on the next trip, they must vote as they are told to. In any event, the letter written by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission states this very clearly and it wasn't the minister who sent it. That's a fact.

Secondly, I'd like to know how much the federal government spent on legal fees in the Airbus affair and in connection with the Somalia inquiry, and how much it plans to spend on its defence in the Peppergate affair. How much did it spend on the hepatitis C and tainted blood scandal? Yet, when the RCMP Public Complaints Commission makes a request, the government argues that compliance would be too costly.

The government has spent millions of dollars in legal costs. It has handed over blank checks to these lawyers because it did not set any time limit on these inquiries at the outset, that is it didn't say that they must wrap up their work in three months' or four months' time. No, it was: “let's go, you have to defend us and we have to win. If things don't go well, then we put a stop to the commission's activities”.

If we have any conscience whatsoever, the proper course of action is to acquiesce to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission's request and uphold the right of Canadians to be defended properly in a country that has already started to disregard freedom of expression.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a pleasure.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Turp and then Ms. Finestone.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, you have taught international law as I have and you know that we have international commitments and that we are a party to many United Nations declarations and international conventions. I'd like to quote one article in particular of the declaration the 50th anniversary of which we celebrated several weeks ago, namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We take pride in the fact that one of our predecessors, Mr. Humphrey, was instrumental in getting the declaration adopted.

• 0950

Before members reject this motion, I would like to recall article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads as follows:

Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

However, this remedy must be effective. Let me quote article 8 as well:

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights...

At issue here are fundamental rights, the right of students to express themselves freely during this demonstration. Therefore, everyone has the right to an effective remedy for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law, but in order for this remedy to be effective, complainants must be represented by counsel. It is patently obvious to everyone that the students must be represented by counsel in order to plead their case properly and in order for the remedy to be effective, because their fundamental rights were violated and because they claim that this happened.

Therefore, I would like to call upon those who have faith in this universal declaration and who plan to rise in the Commons this coming December 10 pursuant to Standing Order 31 to talk about the importance of this document to uphold the true meaning of this text today and to vote in favour of this motion which merely asks the Government of Canada to provide to students the aid that it secures for itself, that is proper legal counsel.

The Chairman: Ms. Finestone.

Hon.. Sheila Finestone: I listened closely to your comments, Mr. Turp, and you are right. You refer to laws...

[English]

and I'm very comfortable with those articles in the law. Mr. Chairman, the more I've thought about it, because I've been very concerned about the rights of the students and their right to make a proper case before the commission, I don't think our concern is not considered on this side of the table as much as it is on the other side of the table. I don't think they are any more sensitive to the issue of the students because they happen to belong to opposition parties than we are as a government. I don't take that as a sound and basic argument.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening very carefully and I have been uncomfortable, until I realized that this commission has been given an additional allocation of something I believe in the amount of $600,000—I may be wrong, but I believe that's the amount—specifically to be able to carry out this piece of work effectively and in the interest of Canadian citizens. I do believe that the commission has the obligation and the staff to ensure representation for those students. I don't wish to cast aspersions or suggest that the commission is looking for more financing, because if they are they'll have to come back in a different way. I see absolutely no reason why they cannot provide the needed representation for these students through the funding that has been allocated to them by the government. If I'm proven wrong, Mr. Chairman, then I think they should be able to come back again.

Further to that, I think I said at the outset that as far as I knew there was a different process in a commission hearing from an ordinary or a particular tribunal. I'd like to suggest that we should allow this to go forward, and I take great caution from the remarks made by Mr. Reed. I think they're well founded. If you set precedents now, you could be in trouble later on.

So, Mr. Chairman, as sensitive as I am, and as every one of my colleagues is, I believe because I can see—I'm a great reader of body language, Mr. Chairman, just in case that's not been obvious, and I think everybody on this side of the table has been sitting here wondering... I can speak for myself anyway. I certainly was very concerned. I listened very carefully and have come to the conclusion that the procedure we're undertaking right now is not necessary. I will certainly vote against it.

• 0955

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Finestone.

I'm going to go to Mr. Bachand before Mr. Robinson because I'm going to give you the last word, Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I will be very brief. The government has agreed to allocate $600,000 for the commission's activities, and that's probably only the beginning. In so doing, it is extending the deadline and of course, the work of the commission. Therefore, the government's legal costs will most likely rise.

Ms. Finestone said that if ever this matter came before a court, it would be different. I remind you that other administrative agencies or tribunals in Canada have certain rules whereby financial assistance may be made available to complainants.

The best example I can give you is that of the National Energy Board which, when it builds a pipeline, allocates money to the party opposing these activities to ensure that all of the evidence is presented. That's normal, because a pipeline is an important undertaking. The NEB wants to ensure that all parties are heard, not only the government and para-governmental agencies.

Again, I have to say that I disagree with Mr. Reed's analogy to a Pandora's box. Unfortunately, or fortunately maybe, I don't have your experience, but this is the first time that the letter from the Public Complaints Commission... I'm new to the federal political scene and it's not the money that matters so much as dignity and process itself. That's precisely why, Mr. Chairman, we must consider this request.

The commission has made a request. So that all parties, namely the government side and the students, can be heard and their position made clear, the commission is asking that legal aid be provided to the complainants. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with my colleague Daniel Turp and honestly say that we are not talking about a demonstration on the Hill to protest a particular piece of legislation. We are talking about fundamental rights, the right of freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate peacefully.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will support Mr. Robinson's resolution. One thing for certain, the people of British Columbia and in fact people across the country will have an opportunity to judge for themselves the attitude of the governing Liberals and their position on fundamental freedoms in Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points and respond directly to Mrs. Finestone's suggestion that because the commission has been extended an additional $650,000 in funding, that responds to the concern around legal representation. The commission itself has made it very clear that they have no jurisdiction as a commission to extend legal funds to the complainants. If they were in a position to do that, obviously they would have done that some time ago.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: They have a responsibility to do that. Svend, you know that as well as I do.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, the commission itself has no authority and jurisdiction to fund the complainants themselves. They've made that very clear. The only authority they have—and this authority was only confirmed by the federal court—is to request the government to provide funding for those complainants. They don't have the authority to fund it themselves.

The students, the complainants, went to the Federal Court and Federal Court Judge Barbara Reed said, and I quote:

Without state funded legal representation, the complainant's applicants will be at a great disadvantage. There will not be a level playing field.

The Federal Court said that. The Public Complaints Commission, in response to that, on July 31 wrote a letter to the government saying they can't do this themselves, but they urge the government to provide funding for legal assistance for these students. The government said no.

• 1000

The MP for the UBC area, Mr. Ted McWhinney, the member for Vancouver Quadra, wrote a letter on August 5—I have a copy of that letter—saying there should be funding to assist these students. The government ignored the MP from Vancouver Quadra, and of course he no longer sits on this committee. So the MP for the area has said, please, provide funding. The Federal Court of Canada has said there won't be a level playing field without funding, and yesterday we received a letter from the commission itself.

If the commission felt they had the jurisdiction, authority or resources to provide funding for the students out of the $650,000, they would have done it. Not one penny of that $650,000 can go to the students. So I appeal to Mrs. Finestone, if she is suggesting that somehow because they can get money from the $650,000, that that's a response, it's not. That money cannot, by law, fund the students.

That's the difficulty, and that's why I plead with members of this committee to understand. Without this level playing field, this hearing risks turning into a travesty of justice. They won't get at the truth, and that's the choice before this committee. It's as fundamental and as stark as that.

Last week the committee said let the commission do its work. The commission has said to the government, “We can't do our work properly; we can't get at the truth unless the students are represented”. Damn it, how much clearer can it be than that? If they could provide funding from the $650,000 they would have done it. They can't. The lawyers are going to withdraw if they cannot get representation.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Never mind about the lawyers. Lawyers don't lead to justice. You know that and I know that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Lawyers certainly help in getting at the truth. So the choice is very stark.

In closing, let me say again that we've heard from the Liberal member of Parliament from that area, we've heard from the Federal Court, and we've heard from the commission itself. This is an adversarial process now. These students have the right to that representation, if it's to be fair and we're to get at the truth. That's all that's being asked for. I've redrafted the motion so it's clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that we're not talking about some open-ended mandate. We're talking about two legal counsel and the students that are represented now.

The choice is stark—and I'll finish with this. The choice is cover-up or truth. If we can't get a level playing field and the students aren't represented properly, we won't get at the truth.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Augustine has a point of clarification and she would like some information. Then we'll hear from Mr. Cannis and Mr. Speller.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): The date of the letter from the commission was October 6. When was the $650,000...?

Mr. Svend Robinson: It was several weeks ago.

The Chairman: The $650,000 additional funding was announced prior to this letter being written. Is that the point you wanted to make?

Ms. Jean Augustine: That's the point.

Mr. John Cannis: I'll just pick up on what Mr. Robinson said. Last week when we had a vote on the motions the opposition brought forward, we said to let the commission do its work, and they voted against it. I want to state that. Today I see this double standard. I see opportunism here, and that's what puts my back up against wall. I see nothing in this but exploitation, and I state this very openly because what we've been saying all along is to let the commission do the work. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): To suggest that the students don't have legal representation is totally false. He's called the commission's lawyer, and that's his job there. He will be there to represent the students. He does represent the students. He represents the public and the students are part of the public. There is a public interest here. To suggest that somehow a whole whack of lawyers will bring justice to the system is wrong.

Mr. Bob Mills: Do you believe in the tooth fairy, Bob?

• 1005

Mr. Bob Speller: The public complaints commissioner is there to represent the public and to get the facts straight, so let's get it straight and let them do their job rather than throwing a whole bunch of lawyers into the pot.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You don't need any more defence lawyers, Bob. We'll just have the prosecutor.

Mr. Bob Speller: My wife is a lawyer too.

The Chairman: I understand that the Public Complaints Commission counsel is different from government lawyers. I think that's the point Mr. Speller is making.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You've caucused with Mr. Robinson and you now want to clarify what you said to him in the back of the room.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: I caucused with the Solicitor General's office.

Mr. Robinson and I have a long history of about 16 years in here of having differences of opinion but finally finding the truth, which is generally on my side.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: We'll take that as your point of clarification, but then we're going to put it to the—

Hon. Sheila Finestone: No, quite seriously, Chris Considine is the counsel for the commission allocated to the youth. What's the explanation on the last two lines?

Mr. Svend Robinson: We don't need the Solicitor General's assistance in telling us what to do.

A voice: You don't need the truth here.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: I want the record to show that he is presenting the evidence in the interests of the youth and in support of the youth.

The Chairman: We're getting into an exchange here that is totally lacking in utility.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp would like to hear Madam Finestone's point. He can't hear it with all the goings-on.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Chris Considine is specifically there to enable the students to present their case. I made a point at the very outset to say that this is a very different circumstance than a commission of any other format. In this instance, this gentleman's responsibility is to make sure that the students are enabled to make their presentation efficiently and effectively. I think that's what counts.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, the role of the commission counsel is well established. The commission counsel is an independent, respected counsel who acts on behalf of the commissioners. The commissioners themselves have said that because the nature of this inquiry has become far more adversarial, he can't take one side or the other in an adversarial process, obviously. If it's an adversarial process, he can't act on behalf of the students, government, or RCMP. His role is to act on behalf of the commission. Mr. Chairman, that's the role of the commission counsel, not one that's on behalf of students.

I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, speaking of roles, what the role is of a representative of the Solicitor General, Andy Scott, in guiding members of this committee, but that's another question that we might want to look at at another time.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

A voice: Mr. Chairman, all this ludicrous stuff is never put forward.

Mr. Julian Reed: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I take exception to this. There has been no guidance given to this parliamentary secretary.

The Chairman: I'm going to put this to a vote, but I want to make it very clear that any member of this committee is entitled to consult with any person here who is here to give them advice. Mr. Robinson, you take advice, they take advice, we all take advice. If I didn't take advice from Ms. Hilchie, this place wouldn't work, as you well know.

Let's move to the vote. I'm going to put the question. This is a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 8)

The Chairman: We have two more resolutions.

• 1010

Members, we are now in a position, as long as we have 10 members, to proceed with the drafting of the nuclear report. We cannot proceed to vote on any resolutions in the absence of any single representative of the opposition. I therefore propose that we move in camera for the consideration of the nuclear report.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Proceedings continue in camera]