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, December 3, 1997

• 1533

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): The committee is now called to order.

We have a letter from Mr. Ramsay, which will be the subject of the first part of this meeting.

Let me say for the record, just so I know whether we have agreement on this, that I know all members are aware that the customs union is to appear before the committee at 4.30 p.m. to deal with a bill that is very important to them. I understand we have all-party agreement on it. I intend to stop this, to show courtesy to our witnesses, at 4.28 p.m. or so, hear those witnesses, and get through clause-by-clause later today.

So I put you on notice of that. If there's going to be a vote on this thing, I'd like to do it at about 4.20 p.m.

Is that okay, then? Does everybody agree that at 4.20 p.m. we'll have the vote on this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: Or before.

The Chair: Well, yes, if we run out of steam, but I mean, Jack is here, and five Ramsay minutes are worth about twenty of regular time.

I'm going to have the clerk read the letter, which is the procedure recommended by those who recommend procedure. I'll be asking for a motion at the conclusion of that.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

• 1535

The Clerk of the Committee: The letter was addressed to the clerk and dated November 18, 1997:

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs shall be convened within ten sitting days for the purpose of examining with witnesses and not in camera what has become known as the “Airbus Affair”.

The Chair: Thank you.

I understand, then, that arising out of this there is a motion by Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Yes.

The Chair: Would you like to make that motion now?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct hearings with witnesses into what has commonly been called the Airbus scandal to determine whether a publicly commissioned inquiry should be convened.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

That motion being on the floor, is there discussion? Mr. Ramsay, would you like to lead?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, if I may.

Madam Chair and committee members, there are two areas I would like to address, and I would begin with the first. The purpose of convening today's meeting and the motion I have tabled is to deal with the unanswered questions on the Airbus scandal, questions the Canadian public have the right to have resolved.

The request letter sent to the Swiss authorities, signed by Kimberly Prost on behalf of former Justice Minister Allan Rock, contained false accusations of criminal activity. I quote from that letter:

This investigation is of serious concern to the Government of Canada as it involves criminal activity on the part of a former Prime Minister.

This false accusation laid the basis for Brian Mulroney's $50 million lawsuit. Former Justice Minister Allan Rock had the opportunity to withdraw the letter and replace it with one minus the false accusations. Mr. Rock failed to do so despite receiving a letter dated November 8, 1995 from Mr. Tassé, Mr. Mulroney's lawyer, in which he stated:

In light of the most improper, unjustified and highly damaging statements contained in the Request made to the Swiss authorities, we urge you to personally review the matter and to direct your Department to withdraw the Request already made and to present, if that is the wish of the RCMP, a new Request that is more respectful of basic rules of fairness and decency.

Mr. Rock refused to withdraw the letter and this resulted in the $50 million lawsuit by Mr. Brian Mulroney. According to RCMP Commissioner Murray, this lawsuit jeopardized the criminal investigation. This is what Commissioner Murray said:

I have been concerned about the potential impact on the criminal investigation of a long and very public civil process.

This concern was insufficient to have the letter withdrawn. The civil suit was proceeded with and at the last moment former Justice Minister Allan Rock made an out-of-court settlement, with apology. This cost taxpayers $3.4 million. Letters of apology went to Karlheinz Schreiber and Frank Moores. However, the letter containing the false accusations of criminal activity was not withdrawn.

A court decision indicated the request letter was invalid, or at least the process was, since it had followed an improper process. Rather than withdraw the letter, the former justice minister appealed the decision, and to date no court decision has been made on the legality of the process followed in issuing the letter of request.

The original court decision invalidated the process and meant the letter would have to be withdrawn. If the original decision is upheld by the courts, I believe the letter will be invalidated and will have to be withdrawn.

The false accusations contained within the letter of request, signed by Kimberly Prost on behalf of the justice minister, formed the basis of the $50 million lawsuit, which cost taxpayers $3.4 million. Because it has not been withdrawn, it now forms the basis for the $35 million lawsuit initiated by Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber.

Madam Chair, it is essential the following questions be clarified for all members of the House and the Canadian people.

One, why did former Justice Minister Allan Rock not withdraw the letter when requested in writing on November 8, 1995, to prevent the lawsuit and to save taxpayers the money that was expended on that lawsuit?

• 1540

Two, who knew about the RCMP investigation and the request letter other than Kimberly Prost and Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald?

Three, who drafted the six draft letters?

Four, who rejected those draft letters?

Five, who approved the letter that finally went forward to the Swiss authorities?

Six, who embellished the wording of the draft letters each time, going further and further beyond the evidence supplied by the RCMP in their original request for the request letter? Why did the Justice officials not simply tell the RCMP that they didn't have enough evidence to support a request letter and to come back when they did?

Those are some of the questions.

In addition to those questions, how many Canadians have been falsely accused by a secret process employed by the Justice department? What assurance do Canadians have that letters containing false accusations against citizens of this country are not continuing to be sent out by the justice department?

Of course I refer to former Justice Minister Allan Rock's comments on January 6, 1997. He said this:

There was a presumption that the written Requests would never become public and that in keeping with the international practice, statements of wrongdoing could be made about people under investigation so that foreign authorities could quickly grasp the essence of the police theory.

So the question is, has this system victimized other Canadians, and if so, how many?

Eight, are Canadians to believe this investigation of the former Prime Minister was initiated by a staff sergeant of the RCMP and a mid-level lawyer in the justice department without the knowledge of the justice minister, the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister, or the Commissioner of the RCMP, all of whom have claimed to have played no direct role in the investigation?

Nine, if the investigation and letter were instigated by a staff sergeant and a mid-level lawyer, under whose authority was it initiated?

Ten, why was the letter containing the false accusations not withdrawn, and why is it still not withdrawn? The RCMP do not need letters of request containing false accusations in order to do their job. Why has it not been withdrawn? This letter provides the base for the Schreiber lawsuit of $35 million against Canadian taxpayers and may be the target of another lawsuit from the former Prime Minister.

I'd like to move to the second area.

The Chair: Can you just slow down a little bit.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

A voice: Do you have a copy of the report?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I don't; I'm sorry. But for the record I'll present what I have here.

The perception has been left with Canadians that former staff sergeant Fraser Fiegenwald is responsible for the entire Airbus scandal, including the $3.4 million the fiasco cost Canadians. The facts do not support this perception. However, the government has done nothing to dispel it.

I refer to comments made by RCMP Commissioner Murray regarding the announcement of the code of conduct investigation of Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald. On January 6, 1997, he said this:

On the allegation of a disclosure by a member of the RCMP investigative team to an unauthorized third party, I am deeply disturbed by this development. Although we are talking here about allegations of oral communication made to an unauthorized third party outside government, this is potentially a serious breach of the RCMP's Code of Conduct, but it is NOT expected to harm the criminal investigation. On the contrary, the investigative team continues to work full-time to gather information and evidence.

Two independent senior investigators from outside the Ottawa area with no links whatsoever to the Airbus case have been assigned to conduct a thorough investigation under the RCMP Code of Conduct. They have been directed to start work immediately. In the meantime, the member in question has been reassigned to administrative duties. If the evidence gathered by the Code of Conduct investigation suggests the allegations are true, the member could face a variety of sanctions ranging from counselling to dismissal from the Force.

In closing, it's obvious that this is not a normal practise for the RCMP to publicly announce a Code of Conduct investigation involving one of our members. But this is all part of an effort to be as up front with the Canadian public as we possibly can. We are committed to being as transparent as possible throughout this process.

• 1545

The code of conduct hearing was convened despite a recommendation to the contrary from an internal investigation. The Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald hearing was to be closed to the public. The closed hearing was challenged and the court ruled the hearing was to be open. However, just a few days before the judge's decision Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald was allowed to retire from the force without a hearing or any determination of guilt or innocence.

The question is this. Why was Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald allowed to retire from the force before the accusations against him had been dealt with? The RCMP Act grants the commissioner authority to refuse a discharge of a member until any disciplinary actions have been dealt with. Why was this authority not exercised and this matter clarified? Why was this not done to determine the full extent of the involvement of Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald in the Airbus scandal?

The Solicitor General has the authority under subsection 24.1(1) of the RCMP Act to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate and report on any matter connected with the organization, training, conduct, performance of duties, discipline, efficiency, administration, or government of the force, or affecting any member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of the act. The question is why has the Solicitor General failed to exercise his authority to clarify this matter for Canadians? Why was this not done to determine the involvement of Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald in the Airbus scandal? Madam Chair, even the former justice minister, on learning of the discharge of Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald, expressed regret that all the facts were not on the table.

I conclude by saying this. The committee has the power and the authority to put those facts on the table, and I implore the committee members to do so. A cloud hangs over the RCMP, negatively affecting their reputation. As well, a cloud hangs over the Prime Minister, the former Minister of Justice, and the former Solicitor General, as their involvement in this matter remains suspect. I would encourage all members, particularly those on the other side of this table, to help lift this cloud and allow the truth to be known. If there is nothing to hide, they should be willing to do so.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

About procedure, there are four signatories to this letter. I know Mr. MacKay wants to make some submissions.

Mr. Forseth, do you have any submissions to make at this time?

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): I would just say there is precedent. I'm looking at the minutes of a previous committee, where I recall currently Minister Marchi was on this side of the table and was making the same kind of request. So we're not asking for something that's out of bounds or unusual.

I think we have to look specifically at the motion that is before us. We're not looking to conduct everything here. We're looking to the merits of getting, as you called it, a commission of inquiry. That's the issue: only getting into the substance of the matter an amount sufficient to consider voting for our specific motion, not making this committee the process of the inquiry. That's the distinction.

Those are the two points I had. There is precedent for what we're doing. Secondly, it's to clarify what we're really asking for.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): I would just like to add my support to what we've been looking at here.

We as committees are masters of our own destiny. We can make our decisions. If we see there's a need within Parliament for something to be done we can initiate that. That's what we're bringing forward here.

To maintain the credibility of Parliament and the MPs who represent the people of Canada I think we need to uphold a very high standard. To me that's really important. Therefore we really should be sure that all the information is open and available for the Canadian people to see. That's why I'm supporting this motion.

The confidence of Canadians in their institutions and the justice system is at stake. As a committee I think we realize more than most that this is very important. That's why I would call upon all the members of the committee to be sure they support this motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. MacKay. Take the time you need.

• 1550

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. Many of my remarks, I think, will in essence be along the same lines as those put forward by members of Reform, in particular Mr. Ramsay.

As a starting point, I think what we have to keep in mind is that the letter that was signed by Mr. Mulroney contains some significant passages when one considers the recent refusal by the government to withdraw the initial letter that was sent to the Swiss authorities. I just want to quote from a passage of the letter that was sent.

The Chair: I was just going to ask you something. You're referring to a letter signed by...?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm referring to the settlement letter that was waved in the House of Commons several times by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. It was tabled in the House, I believe, and I have copies.

The Chair: The minutes of settlement.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, the minutes of settlement. It's actually entitled “Settlement Agreement”.

The Chair: I think everybody here has a copy, but go ahead.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Paragraph 4 states:

Based on the evidence received to date, the RCMP acknowledges that any conclusions of wrongdoing by the former Prime Minister were—and are—unjustified.

The second paragraph says:

The Government of Canada and the RCMP regret any damage suffered by Mr. Mulroney and his family and fully apologize to them.

We know this letter was accompanied by a financial compensation package for Mr. Mulroney's legal defence.

The Chair: Would you like to table that letter so that it's before the committee?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Certainly.

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent for that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

An hon. member: For clarity, it's not the letter; it's the settlement agreement.

The Chair: He's calling it a letter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's the settlement agreement. I have the letter that went to the Swiss authorities as well, if you would like that to be tabled.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The settlement letter that Mr. Mulroney signed was signed with the understanding that this would essentially clear him of wrongdoing. I think this was the intent of this letter. Regardless of that fact, we know that an investigation continues. That's been repeated by the commissioner and by the Minister of Justice. My understanding is that there may be up to seven RCMP investigators now working on this file. That's like the rule of diminishing returns—the less evidence you have, the more police investigators you put on the file. Be that as it may, Mr. Mulroney has been declared innocent by virtue of that letter. He has been cleared of wrongdoing, and I would suggest that there would certainly be an issue of double jeopardy if ever there were to be charges laid in any event.

The fact remains that the letter is still in existence. It is still, I would suggest, damaging to the reputation of the former Prime Minister.

I want to put on the record that I appreciate that it's the Reform Party that has taken the initiative in this regard. I would suggest that is indicative of the fact that this transcends partisan politics. We're talking about the guilt or innocence of a former Prime Minister, but also a citizen of this country who is bound by the same protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country. He is bound by the same protection that proclaims a person's innocence until proven guilty, although the Prime Minister, on the floor of the House of Commons, spoke of “guilty until proven guilty”. That is in fact an accurate assessment of what I think has been perpetrated here.

Based on the evidence, or the lack thereof, in this country it would appear that members of the RCMP—specifically Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald, who was heading up the investigation at the time—I assume under the direction of members of the justice department, particularly Kimberly Prost, went ahead and sent this very accusatory letter containing all sorts of false, unsubstantiated allegations to another country.

Madam Chair, with your involvement in the legal system, you would know that in order for the police to get a warrant, they have to appear before a justice of the peace to make a case in order to get a warrant at that point. On the face of it, it would appear there was insufficient evidence in this country, so the politically motivated witch-hunt took them across the ocean to Switzerland in order to go into bank accounts.

I will table this letter, because for those who haven't read it, I think it's important to take a look at just how damaging these allegations were. I think there was an analogy made in an article in the Financial Post that graphically sums up what is occurring here. Suppose a billboard was erected on Parliament Hill and it said that Brian Mulroney is a crook. Suppose also that subsequent to that there was a settlement in which the government retracted that allegation, made financial compensation, and apologized publicly, but left the billboard erected for months afterwards. This is essentially what is going on here.

• 1555

This letter is floating around out there. Whether it's accepted or not in this country, it looks as if it is finally starting to trickle down in people's minds that this was completely unsubstantiated. This letter is still in the hands of the Swiss authorities. This, I would suggest, is much of the reasoning behind the lawsuit that has been launched now by Mr. Schreiber. Mr. Mulroney, for his reasons, is perhaps rattling his sabre that he as well may launch a lawsuit if this letter is not retracted.

Madam Chair, it is trite to say that in this particular case I've often heard the expression that a dead fish stinks from the head. Obviously, what's going on here is not the full picture—

The Chair: It must be a Nova Scotian expression.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, it is. A fish rots from the head.

I'm afraid that we're getting only part of the fish here; we've got only the body.

The comments made by Mr. Ramsay to suggest to this committee or to anyone in Canada that a middle-management lawyer in the justice department and a staff sergeant were the only ones behind this entire investigation, driving it forward, is, I think, ludicrous.

I would suggest that this is the forum for us to have a full look at what has taken place, to remove this cloud of incompetence, I would suggest, if nothing else, from the justice department.

It's consistent, I would suggest, with the stance that was taken by the Liberal government of openness and transparency to restore public confidence. It's very consistent with the stance of the Prime Minister before the election that this is what he intended to do, but it's simply not the case; it's not what we're seeing take place here.

Mr. Mulroney deserves, as I said, all of the rights and privileges of any other Canadian.

It goes beyond politics at this point. If this can happen to a former Prime Minister in this country, think of the jeopardy that each and every one of us is in. Brian Mulroney was and is fortunate in that he was able to defend himself in a public forum, the civil courts. A Canadian wrongfully accused, I would suggest, would not, under normal circumstances, have the financial means to defend himself in such a way.

Now that we have this compensation package, we know that it's costing the taxpayers a lot of money. There are still lawsuits outstanding, and potentially more coming. We haven't heard from former premier Frank Moores. I would suggest that there is a potential lawsuit in the works there as well.

So, Madam Chair, I would support this motion that has been put forward by the Reform Party. I would suggest that it is within your purview to initiate a public forum where we can have witnesses called. I would be most interested in hearing from Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald, under oath, as to what his instructions were, who knew, who helped in the drafting of the letter. These are questions that we all need to flush out.

The process has broken down here, and I think it's incumbent upon all of us to try to rectify what has occurred. It is not to rehabilitate the reputation of Brian Mulroney, nor to place a priority on this ahead of victims or ahead of any other important justice issue that may come before us. However, I would suggest that this is something that has become very prevalent in people's minds when it comes to the credibility not only of the government but also of the entire justice system. I fully support this initiative, and I hope that all members of this committee will take this matter very seriously and not delve into partisan politics.

Let's get some answers. Let's be truth seekers. That's what this system is supposed to be all about.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): On a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. MacKay referred to the offending letter, if there was an offending letter, that is floating around Parliament Hill.

The Chair: He was going to table it.

Mr. Derek Lee: It's not floating around over here.

If that's tabled, thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

• 1600

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I will also be supporting this motion moved by the Reform Party, not so much to restore someone's image or to re-establish the value of public figures who played a significant role in the history of Canada in the past years, but to get to the bottom of this matter which I find extremely important because the Airbus Scandal is not limited to Canada. Some foreign countries are also involved in this matter and some Canadian institutions have lost a bit of credibility because of the work done by the RCMP. The Department of Justice has also been discredited in the matter.

Let's simply take a cold hard look at the facts. A letter goes around and Mr. Mulroney's lawsuit is settled out of court. I was joking before, but it is mostly Switzerland that is involved. There's a world of difference between the two.

Someone or some group somewhere has not done its job properly. Some people have made reckless accusations. Was there any political intervention to abort the whole thing? What lies at the very bottom of this matter? We know it has cost millions to settle and close the file.

But nothing is said about the time the Department of Justice and the RCMP spent preparing the file and trying to save face. How long did they work on it? Nobody knows. Everybody is going back to square one as though nothing had happened. Everyone is going back to their duties as though nothing had happened. They carry on with their day-to-day existence and that's it.

I think that the Standing Committee on Justice of the 36th Parliament is the appropriate forum to consider the matter as coolly as possible and to put the spotlight on the people who didn't do their job and the blame on those in authority. We can also make recommendations. We are in a good position to do it. However, I also know that we have limited powers and that we cannot exceed our powers. This committee has indeed very limited powers but we can nevertheless start investigating in order to check whether the matter is serious enough to warrant requesting the House to establish a public inquiry commission in due form.

It's happened in an earlier Parliament. However, the Liberal Party as well as the Reform Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the PC Party, which is directly interested because of the former Prime Minister of Canada, would all be well advised to get to the bottom of this matter. I think that we should all step back to consider this issue from a distance, so that it is not reviewed— without any partisanship, it's hard—in the same light as in the 34th and 35th Parliaments.

I think that time is on our side in this case. We could make an in-depth assessment of the situation and draw our own conclusions to make sure that this thing never happens again. If nobody gets blamed, we cannot be certain that there will not be a second time. The Minister of Justice says he's sorry, remains in the same portfolio and life goes on as though nothing had happened. The Solicitor General apologizes at the same time, also gets to keep his position and life goes on for him too. The same thing happens with the bureaucrats who worked on the case and who wrote the letter. Who has seen this letter? How wide was it circulated? We don't know.

If we want to fulfil our mandate and do a good job as members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I think that our only option is to vote in favour of the motion.

• 1605

Would it be possible to rework the policy aspect? We do have limited powers as I said earlier. It is our duty to consider the Airbus Scandal, given all the implications and the fact that this matter affects Canada's credibility on an international basis.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Mancini, do you have any comments?

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Yes, thank you.

I have a procedural question first. Madam Chair, can you answer this question for me? If this motion passes, as I read the request from the members we would convene within 10 sitting days. How much time would be devoted to this? Do we know how many days?

The Chair: We've convened well within 10 sitting days of receiving the letter. You may not have the actual motion, but the motion as I understand it is that we now embark upon a study of the subject matter of this meeting, with a view, I think, in Mr. Ramsay's eyes, to maybe making a recommendation that there be a commission of inquiry.

Mr. Peter Mancini: And we can set the parameters of how long this would take, how many days we would devote to it.

The Chair: If that motion passes then we would have to sit down and work out what procedure we would follow and how we would deal with it.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I ask those questions because initially when I received notice of this, I was not disposed to support the motion, for a couple of reasons, primarily because I think we have already spent a huge amount of the taxpayers' money on this whole affair and there are other pressing justice issues that the people of Canada want us to address.

That said—and I kind of had in my mind what it is it going to cost us to continue to look to the past instead of struggling with the justice issues of the future—having listened to Mr. Ramsay today, he took me down a different path, and I think he makes a compelling argument about the questions that have not been answered.

I am swayed by his words more so, Peter, than I am by yours to some extent, because I heard in some of your comments a great deal of defence, I suppose. But I am convinced—and I'll be very brief—to support the motion more so by the arguments that were put forward by Mr. Ramsay, and by Mr. Bellehumeur as well. We need to look at this as coldly as possible. I was also convinced by the answers I received from the chair about how we can set the parameters and how much time we spend on this.

Because I do come back to the point that the Canadian taxpayers have spent a huge amount of their money on this whole issue, which may have been mishandled, and I don't know if they want us to spend a whole lot more. I do think we need to get to the bottom of what we can.

The Chair: Thanks.

We have about 12 minutes left and I have four government members who want to speak. I want to give at least Mr. Ramsay and Mr. MacKay a brief opportunity to respond. I think that's the best model in terms of dealing with this.

Ms. Bakopanos.

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

I would like to address some of the concerns Mr. Ramsay and Mr. MacKay raised. First of all, I believe Mr. MacKay tabled only the settlement agreement, without the actual annex. I'd like to put it on the record and I'd like to table the annex that also goes with the agreement. I'd like to read it for the Canadian public because I think it clarifies a couple of things:

I, the undersigned, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE BRIAN MULRONEY, in consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into this fifth day of January...and in consideration of costs to be paid in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, hereby release and discharge the Defendants

—and that includes the procureur général of Canada, Kimberly Prost, J.P.R. Murray, and Fraser Fiegenwald—

from all claims, which I have or may have arising out of or related directly or indirectly to the matters set forth in the various proceedings in the present case.

I recognize that this Settlement constitutes a transaction within the meaning....

I won't read the rest. It's signed by Brian Mulroney. I'd like that to also be on the record. I have it in both official languages.

The other thing I'd like to read, which wasn't read into the—

The Chair: Is there any objection to that? We need unanimous consent for tabling this.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That's fine.

The Chair: No objections. Thank you.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Here's what I'd like to read. Under the agreement:

The parties acknowledge that the procedure used in sending the Request for Assistance to Switzerland in this case was the same as that followed in numerous previous requests for mutual assistance under both the current and previous administrations where such requests have always remained confidential. Because of this the Government of Canada did not foresee that the Request for Assistance would become public. Since it did, the Government of Canada has reviewed its procedure to ensure that the risk of this happening again is minimized.

The parties accept that the RCMP, on its own, initiated the Airbus investigation;

—and let's not forget that Mr. Mulroney signed this—

that the Minister of Justice was not involved in the decision to initiate the investigation; and that before November 4, 1995, the Minister of Justice was not aware of the Request for Assistance and the RCMP investigation.

The parties accept that the RCMP and the Department of Justice in sending the Request for Assistance to Switzerland acted within their legitimate responsibilities in this matter.

• 1610

I believe, Madam Chair, that the settlement agreement sets out the parameters of what was agreed upon between the government and Mr. Mulroney, and I believe it does state that Mr. Mulroney accepted the fact that there is an ongoing RCMP investigation. I fail to see how we, as a committee—if there is precedent, I'd like to know about it—could interfere in an ongoing investigation. We would bring to the public perhaps confidential aspects of this investigation, which may damage the RCMP's investigation in the long run.

Also, there are some issues that are currently before the courts, as was stated by both Mr. Ramsay and Mr. MacKay, and the Supreme Court will be considering constitutionality. We would also be damaging that process.

Mr. Schreiber is suing the government for libel, and that also is an ongoing case before the courts. We would also perhaps be damaging the process in that case.

I fail to see how any precedent has been created in the past when there is an ongoing investigation...that we as a committee should be interfering with an ongoing investigation and also with a process that is within the justice system.

I would like to say again that I think the out-of-court settlement is very clear in terms of Mr. Mulroney exonerating the government and allowing the RCMP to continue its investigation.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Ms. Bakopanos.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

There are a whole lot of different perspectives we could take on this here today, but on the issue of whether or not the justice committee could pursue this, I certainly stand with those who say it could. It has the authority to do it under the standing orders. It has the full authority of the House of Commons to call for persons and papers. We have resources, all the resources of the House of Commons, so we could certainly do this. The question is, would we want to? Do we want to at this time, if at all?

I have some concerns. That won't surprise any of you. One of them—and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it—is what I would call Mr. Mulroney's personal vulnerability to a process that would take place here in the House of Commons or at this committee.

You will realize that in this committee and in the House of Commons there is complete immunity for the work we do here, and in the process of pursuing an inquiry along these lines we will inevitably, and quite publicly, unless we decide to do it in camera, end up saying things, articulating things, that Mr. Mulroney and others might prefer that we do not publicly. He is, for all practical purposes, an innocent person in all respects until the state manages to prove otherwise.

By embarking on an inquiry that probes very specific allegations—and there's no question at all that officials who were pursuing the investigation at the RCMP were in fact making allegations. In fact, officials had never reached a conclusion. Regrettably, the letter of request to Swiss authorities implies that a conclusion had been reached by the RCMP, and that was the basis of the lawsuit. But no one has reached a conclusion that anyone is guilty of an offence here. There are only allegations and some evidence.

• 1615

I hold that out as reason why we might not want to, at this point in time, before the investigation is completed, begin probing an issue where someone's guilt or innocence will come into play, and there are at least three individuals allegedly, possibly, involved here. Even as I speak I am touching on matters that are best not dealt with publicly at this point in time and are best left with those who would pursue any investigation, so I don't want to spend more time on that.

If we were to undertake an inquiry now, we would do it with the full knowledge that there is in existence an investigation. This is something Parliament generally doesn't do by convention. Just because there's a convention there that we wouldn't embark on an inquiry when another branch of government is carrying on the same kind of inquiry doesn't mean we can't do it. We have full authority in this Parliament to carry out any kind of an investigation we want to. But the question is, should we? I'm suggesting we should respect the convention that causes Parliament to avoid or delay carrying on investigations when the police are doing it in tandem.

Thirdly, you can't look at one small aspect of this case. This began with a decision by Air Canada to spend $1.8 billion on some new aircraft, and I don't think you can look at any one piece of this puzzle unless you look at the whole thing. By the time we would complete reconnoitring every little nook and cranny of this issue we would have gone global; we would have brought up dozens of names of people, procedures; how the heck these contracts are negotiated; who the middle men are; why people open up bank accounts in Switzerland; how the money moves around; percentages, favours, quid pro quos, travel arrangements, suitcases, and telephone calls.

I could spend a couple of months myself, and there are probably a few investigative journalists out there spending half a year putting stuff together on this. My Pandora's box argument is that if we were to ever get into it, we would only do it with very specific focus, time, location and place, and we certainly haven't done that.

Having said all of that, this is why even though there are real questions out there—and I have questions as a member of Parliament about certain things—I'm not prepared to embark on an inquiry of this intensity, of this profile, at this time, if ever. I wouldn't say never.

But there is in existence.... The members are all aware that the estimates procedure or other inquiries that we undertake at this committee are fully capable of providing an avenue to ask questions and get them answered. The Commissioner of the RCMP will be here for estimates. I suspect he would be cautious about answering questions about a matter that is under investigation, but if members of this committee are determined to get an answer then the commissioner is bound to answer. The question is whether we want a public answer about something that's under investigation.

There are other questions that can be asked of the Minister of Justice, of the Solicitor General, whatever, and the opposition is fully at liberty to ask those questions today, in the House, or at committee in estimates.

I was in opposition once, too, Madam Chair, and I'm fully supportive of those types of inquiries. But I can't support the motion at this time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Colleagues, just keep in mind that it's 20 after and we have witnesses coming, so—

Mr. Derek Lee: I apologize for taking so much time.

The Chair: That's all right. I want to give the opposition, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. MacKay, a chance to respond, so I know you're going to be brief, Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): As usual.

Madam Chair, I think if the members opposite had taken the time, and I know they have, to read the settlement of agreement...a lot of the questions they raise have been answered in that settlement of agreement, as Ms. Bakopanos pointed out.

• 1620

On the question of the letter, what we have to understand here is that the criminal investigation is still ongoing and was ongoing. What precipitated the civil suit is the issuance of that letter, which was issued under normally followed, traditional procedures that were followed by previous administrations.

On the question of the content of the letter, the settlement also acknowledges that it only contained allegations. That was made clear. This is something Mr. Mulroney signed and accepted. If he wanted that letter withdrawn, I'm sure he is intelligent and had recourse to an awful lot of good counsel, so why didn't he make that part of his settlement, the request to withdraw that letter?

When we take a look at the content here, we have to assure Canadians that no one should be subjected to that in the future.

Again, if we take a look at item 8 of the settlement, it says that even though they've used the regularly followed procedure, we have now put new procedures in place to review any such requests of foreign countries, and those letters will be scrutinized and reviewed by the proper echelons in the hierarchy. So the risk of that happening again is minimized and no one else will undergo such a thing.

I don't understand what we're going to achieve by having.... I'd like this clarified on behalf of Mr. Ramsay in his rebuttal. Are we asking for a commission of inquiry on the Somalia commission? That's how his motion reads, I think.

The Chair: The motion is that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct hearings with witnesses into what is commonly called the Airbus scandal in order to determine whether a publicly commissioned inquiry should be convened.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Okay, so we're not at that step yet. All right, thank you.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. DeVillers and then Mr. Telegdi, and I know you're both going to be so brief.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Yes, I'll be very brief, Madam Chair.

I hear the members of the opposition saying they are not trying to be political or partisan, and I don't question that lightly, but I am brought to wonder when I notice the wording in the letter refer to “the Airbus affair”, whereas in the motion it's referred to as “the Airbus scandal”. That, to me, smacks of politicizing the issue.

The Chair: I'll let them have a little lapse.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: The only other point I want to make is on what Mr. Ramsay referred to as other possible victims we might not know about. Well, we're here and we're discussing this because this letter became public, and that's what created the victim, if there is one in this thing. If there were other victims, we would know about it. They would be in the public domain. So I don't think that should be a legitimate concern.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Telegdi, ever so briefly.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Chair, I'm very touched by the non-partisan nature of the issue before us and I'm further touched by Mr. Ramsay's interest in rehabilitation.

I've been kind of bothered by this issue. We're talking about a motion that we don't have a copy of. We're talking about wanting to do things such as withdrawing letters, which to my understanding would effectively abrogate the ongoing investigation, which the former Prime Minister thought the RCMP had every right to carry out. There are all sorts of questions as to who leaked this letter, and on and on.

My concern, Madam Chair, is if this is really a serious attempt to get at something specific, then I would like to see the documentation before me and I would like to have an opportunity to review it, none of which has been the case.

The other issue I'm concerned about is that we as a committee have quite a workload in front of us, not the least of which is the Victims' Bill of Rights, which we really have to start moving on, plus all the other work. I would hate to get into committing ourselves to major time expenditures that would put many of those pressing issues on the back burner, for something that I don't have the documentation on and didn't have the opportunity to review. I don't know the implications of the ongoing investigation. Now I understand there are seven RCMP officers undertaking it.

• 1625

So, Madam Chair, I cannot support the motion at this time for those reasons.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Ramsay and then Mr. MacKay, keeping in mind the time.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: The motion has nothing whatever to do with interfering with the RCMP investigation.

To respond to the comments that have been made by the other side, Brian Mulroney's agreement cannot release Kimberly Prost or any other official from any act of impropriety they may have committed. To attempt to cover that possibility by reading from the agreement is irrelevant, redundant, and wrong.

The agreement signed by Brian Mulroney and the Department of Justice cannot alleviate responsibility if there have been improprieties committed. We've been asking, and certainly I've been asking, to be able to look at the process that occurred here that resulted in a letter being forwarded to a foreign authority containing false accusations against a Canadian citizen.

As far as the agreement is concerned, it was made between the parties involved and has no other impact in terms of impropriety committed by Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald or Kimberly Prost or whomever. We would like to ask questions as far as their conduct is concerned.

On the interference with an ongoing police investigation, I covered that and there is no interference. Let the police do their work.

But we have a responsibility to the citizens of this country to ensure that our institutions of government are working properly and the rights of individuals are not being violated. If we have a process that allows false accusations about Canadians to be placed in letters going to foreign authorities, then you had better believe we should be examining that process. We have a right and a duty to examine that process.

It happened in this case and became public only because of extraordinary circumstances, I suppose. I don't know what brought it to the attention of the public. But it does identify a process that we ought to be very concerned about. There doesn't seem to be any concern about a process that can label a person falsely in this country. We have evidence that this has been going on for a number of years. Although there is an indication that process has been changed, we don't know what has changed in that process. We do know court has ruled it to be illegal and improper. That ruling has been appealed and we're still waiting for the final decision.

If the appeal is thrown out, it means we have a very clear process and it's a legal process. It's very clear we would have to appear before a competent jurisdiction in order to get the authority to make the request letter to a foreign authority. We go far beyond that.

As far as Mr. Lee's concern about poor Mr. Mulroney and the others being exposed, well, for goodness' sake, Mr. Mulroney himself is asking for a public inquiry into this. Mr. Schreiber is initiating his own public inquiry in a forum into this. I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy your comments, sir,

I respectfully submit that an effort to get answers to the questions I have raised can be done and ought to be done without interfering at all in the RCMP investigation. What bothers me more than anything else is that it seems the Minister of Justice, the Department of Justice, and the government of this country are saying that in order for the RCMP to continue with its investigation, it must rely upon a letter containing a false statement and a false accusation, and I don't agree with that.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That isn't what you said.

The Chair: Order.

• 1630

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I do not understand why the letter cannot be withdrawn and a new letter issued, minus the false accusations, and let the police carry on with their job. As it is now, we the taxpayer are vulnerable to the lawsuits. We're vulnerable to Mr. Schreiber's lawsuit. Who is going to pay for the cost of his lawsuit? Is there going to be an out-of-court settlement? The lawsuit is based upon the false accusation contained in a letter the government refuses to withdraw.

For the benefit of time and my colleague down the way, who obviously has some comments, I'll end my comments there.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have to pick up on the last comment by Mr. Ramsay. Let's face it, that letter is flawed evidence. It's not going to be used in an investigation. It's impossible for them to rely on that as part of their investigation. The investigation is continuing full force, there's no question about that.

Mr. Lee, I have to respond to your remarks about process and the public perception of this. How much more public can this affair be? I ask that rhetorically. This has gone on for over a year now. This trial took place in the papers and on the news. It didn't take place in a courtroom. At least a person accused of a crime has a forum to go before a court and be proven guilty or innocent. That hasn't taken place here.

There is a suggestion by Ms. Bakopanos that this letter and the fact that Mr. Mulroney has signed this letter is an exoneration of the government. I would suggest that when a breach of contract occurs.... This would have to be disputed, but if the government is still relying on this letter and not withdrawing it and it was false to begin with, then all bets are off. Mr. Mulroney does not have to comply with what he's agreed with if the government isn't living up to their end of the bargain.

Mr. Lee also suggested that we should ask questions in Question Period, that we have other forums, and yet he has contradicted himself in his very remarks by saying that we don't want to have pieces of the puzzle. So let's delve into this in a complete way. Let's have a subcommittee or a forum where we can look at all the facts. If the investigation is going to go on ad infinitum, we're never going to get to the bottom of it, if that cloud is going to continue out there.

There's a principle in law, as you know, Madam Chair, called habeas corpus. Where's the body? Where's the evidence here? Where's the proof? There's none. There's an investigation that's been ongoing for years. There's not one shred, one scintilla, of evidence that the Prime Minister did anything wrong, and if there were, I guarantee you we'd know about it.

The Chair: First of all, I just want to thank everybody for keeping on the right side of the edge of tone here and also for co-operating in terms of time. I know you know we've limited the time by agreement. I appreciate that because it allows us to get on with the work we have to do. I think we've had a pretty full discussion within that limited time, so I thank you all for that.

The motion is now before the committee and I'm going to call the question. Do you want the motion read?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: Do you want a voice vote?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes.

The Chair: All right. Please read the motion, Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct hearings with witnesses into what has commonly been called the “Airbus Scandal,” to determine whether a Publicly Commissioned Inquiry should be convened.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll have a recorded vote, please, Mr. Clerk.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

• 1635

The Chair: Thank you. We'll rise for a few minutes while we get ready to hear our witnesses.