[asia-apec 733] (no title)

[Sharon R.A. Scharfe]

September 30, 1998
Hansard
Canadian Parliament
Official Transcript (English)


Official Statements

...

INDONESIA 

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press
reports “Although ethnic Chinese people represent just 4% of Indonesia's 202
million people, they dominate commerce and industry. They are frequently
scapegoats during troubled times”. 

The Asian financial crisis is hitting Indonesia hard and Indonesian Chinese
are being hit harder as scapegoats. For example, Chinese women and young
girls are being gang raped. Stores and homes of ethnic Chinese are looted
and torched. Many ethnic Chinese are being murdered. Some say that what is
happening in Indonesia resembles ethnic cleansing. Ethnic Chinese are
fleeing their homes from Malaysia, the Philippines and elsewhere to save
their lives. 

This government brags about its human rights record. When will the Prime
Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for
Asia-Pacific speak up for human rights in Indonesia? 

                                    *  *  *

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

...

APEC SUMMIT 

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Prime Minister. 

The involvement of the Prime Minister's Office in the APEC matter is clear.
Pelletier, Carle, Goldenberg, Donolo, the list is growing. The trail leads
to the Prime Minister, and there is growing evidence that they considered
the comfort of a dictator justified the repression. 

Why this undemocratic choice? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here again the
leader of the New Democratic Party is making false accusations. 

We invited people to come here for the APEC summit. These people included
Jose Ramos Horta, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. He came to the
parallel summit at the invitation of the government and over the protests of
the Indonesian government. Here is what this famous individual had to say
about Suharto's arrival in Canada. 

[English] 

He said: “Canada should welcome Suharto with dignity, but also take a hard
line on human rights. They can have—” 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party. 

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had a
choice. He could have stood up for fundamental democratic rights or, for the
sake of currying favour with a brutal foreign  dictator, he could have
trampled those rights. Why did did this Prime Minister choose to side with
Suharto? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
claims of the NDP is that we should have refused President Suharto access to
Canada. I would like to inform the leader of the New Democratic Party that
before he came to Canada, President Suharto was the guest of  Nelson Mandela
in South Africa, where he was treated as a head of state. 

He came to Canada as an APEC member. It was not a bilateral invitation. It
was an invitation like the invitations made to any other leaders who belong
to this international organization. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, like the
Prime Minister, the Solicitor General cannot or will not answer questions
about APEC. He cannot cite a single section of the RCMP Act which extends
the commission's mandate into the Prime Minister's office,  nor can he
explain to Canadians why they should trust the independence of the RCMP
complaints commission which is almost entirely selected by the Prime
Minister himself. 

I ask the Solicitor General: Why should Canadians trust a minister who
understands little, says less and covers up for the Prime Minister? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike my
hon. colleague I believe that people who choose to serve their country do
not park their integrity at the door. 

Regardless of political affiliation, I do not accept the premise of the
question that someone cannot serve their country independently because I
believe they can. I believe they do. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, would the
solicitor general perhaps accept the fact Elections Canada has indicated
that five members of the Public Complaints Commission made a financial
donation to the Liberal Party of Canada in— 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: The Prime Minister has already bought the loyalty of his
personal protege, Jean Carle, with a patronage appointment. 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to get directly to his question. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to demonstrate
dignity and integrity by speaking in the House on his role in the APEC affair. 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an
inquiry. It will look at all the facts. We have collaborated with the
commission. It asked two persons of my staff to appear, and they will be there. 

Let the commission do its work. I have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing
to hide. That is why we are happy that the commission will start its work on
Monday. Let it do its work. 

When the inquiry is over I will be here. I am here every day, sir, to reply
to your questions. I am not afraid at all. 

The Speaker: I know hon. members will remember that I am here too and that
they should address
me. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is hard to
forget. The head of the APEC operations was very specific in his memo. 

He said that “the PMO has expressed concerns about the security perimeter,
not so much from a security point of view but to avoid embarrassment to the
APEC leaders”. This is the most damning piece of evidence in this saga so far. 

How much longer will the Prime Minister deny that he was involved in this
affair? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
House is well aware, I am sure, the inquiry commences on Monday. 

In the interest of getting to the truth, I think we should leave it to the
inquiry to do that, as parliament instructed when the Public Complaints
Commission was established by the House to do just that job. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
has just told the House and Canadians that he is here every day to answer
the questions, so maybe he could just do that little thing for us. 

There are new documents that are coming forward every day. There are new
witnesses every day: Craig Jones, Chief Sparrow, Mr. Vanderloo. The paper
trail is getting longer and longer. 

Does the Prime Minister still believe there is a great conspiracy going on
against the Prime Minister, or could it be the other way around? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is what
the leader of the NDP said. They talk about somebody who apparently saw me
giving orders and she heard nothing. They never apologized because the chief
in question never heard anything. 

It is the same thing. She accused Mr. Goldenberg of calling the president of
the university. It was just the reverse, and they have not apologized. 

They should just check their facts, and the best way is to wait for the
commission that will look at all
the facts. 

                                    *  *  *

...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, according to the
organizer of the APEC summit the Prime Minister's office wanted to balance
the wishes of foreign dictators against the  rights of protesters at APEC.
Well, balance; you don't balance the constitutional rights of Canadians
against the feelings of a foreign dictator. 

Does the Prime Minister agree with his press secretary? Are the
constitutional rights of Canadians to be balanced against the hurt feelings
of a foreign dictator? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
Canadians want to get to the bottom of all these questions. There is an
instrument to do that. It is called the Public Complaints Commission. It
represents the interest of the public. 

It starts its work on Monday. I would wish members opposite would let it do
its work so we can get to the truth in the interest of the Canadian public. 

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, did we not hear the
Prime Minister say he is here to answer our questions today? Why does he not
get up and answer them? I think the Prime Minister better get his lines
straight if he is to be at the Public Complaints Commission and testify. 

All summer long he has been saying “I have had nothing to do with it. Don't
blame me. I am innocent”.  There is a paper trail that leads right to the
Prime Minister's office, and the paper trail says that the Prime Minister
traded the constitutional rights of honest Canadians against the dictator
Suharto. Why did the Prime Minister do that? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think
the hon. member is trading his interest for the truth— 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general. 

Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians want to get to the truth. I
think the hon. member is trading his interest and Canadians' interest in the
truth to try to score cheap political points here. 

The commission starts on Monday. I think we deserve to give the respect of
the House to that organization, a body organized by the House which I think
will satisfy the Canadian population's interest in getting to the bottom of
this. 

                                    *  *  *

...

ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS

[English] 

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been
moved. 

                               APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to rise in the House and to follow the remarks made by my colleague
from Newfoundland. He spoke very eloquently and no doubt is going to be a
fine parliamentarian in the same vein as the speaker previous to him, my
colleague the House leader of the New Democratic Party. 

I am pleased to speak tonight with respect to the Liberal government's
mishandling of what is now becoming the APEC security issue and the scandal
surrounding it. 

Day after day in this House, the Canadian public and we in this chamber have
been subjected to the repeated evasions and diversions to questions about
the role of the Prime Minister in this matter. There is also the matter of
the government's selected perception as to the role of the RCMP Public
Complaints Commission in investigating last November's crackdown at the APEC
summit in Vancouver. 

The issue extends well beyond whether the RCMP were out of line in security
measures they used against protesters. It extends beyond the appropriateness
of former Indonesian President Suharto even being here on an official state
visit. 

At the heart of the issue is the mounting evidence that the Prime Minister
and his office staff interfered with the RCMP in the arrangement of security
to basically placate the wishes of a foreign dictator, to avoid offending
him. We have seen e-mails, memorandums and notebooks which express the
wishes of the Prime Minister and his staff. They are referenced there quite
clearly. 

We have also witnessed the Prime Minister in the thick of the protest.
Camera angles have caught him at that. Even the Prime Minister's assertion
that he was not, in the words of the NDP, barking out orders, it certainly
raises questions as to what was taking place at that time. 

At the very least, the Prime Minister should be given the opportunity, and I
suggest he has the opportunity, to rise in this House and clarify
contradictory statements made about the handling of  this affair. 

A ministerial statement in the House is appropriate. That is why my
colleagues in the Conservative Party and I have been calling for the Prime
Minister to make such a statement in this House and  clearly outline what
role he played in directing the RCMP during the security at APEC. 

That is why as well we put a motion before the justice committee to conduct
an independent review of the relationship between the PMO and the RCMP to
determine whether political interference occurred in APEC and whether there
are grounds to look at this further and perhaps clarify the boundaries of
what the Prime Minister's role should be in political interference when the
RCMP are handling matters such as this. 

Canadians rightfully want answers and the government continues to throw up
smoke. It points to the inquiry conducted by the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission into the APEC role as a means to get to the bottom of these
questions. 

Regardless of the commission's inquiry, nothing prevents the Prime Minister
from speaking to this matter in the House. It would not interfere with the
inquiry in any way, shape or form. In fact it might
raise new questions for the commission to pursue.  

I suggest the cloud that hangs over the commission further complicates the
matter because the commission's mandate is intended to focus on complaints
directed toward the RCMP. It has nothing to do with political interference.
The commission is headed by a chairperson who has made political donations
to the Liberal Party of Canada, thus bringing into question the arm's length
integrity of that person, sadly. 

The recommendations that that commission might make in any event are not
binding. The report is then made to the RCMP commissioner or the solicitor
general himself, thus further undermining the integrity of that commission. 

Clearly what we need to have happen in this case is have the Prime Minister
stand in his place in this chamber and give Canadians what they deserve:
accountability and responsible leadership in
government. 

Canadians need an investigative process that is open, transparent and
accountable and also has the appearance of such. I call again upon the
government and the Prime Minister to clarify what exactly took place in
Vancouver. Let us stop the stonewalling. Let us stop talking about what the
commission is charged with doing and talk about what the commission is not
charged with doing, and that is the accountability of the Prime Minister and
political interference that is alleged in this matter.  

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public
complaints commission was created by parliament in 1986 to act in the public
interest in addressing complaints by the public against the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. 

The commission is an independent civilian board. Each year it receives on
average 1,000 complaints from Canadians about the RCMP. About 300 of these
complaints result annually in independent investigations. The commission has
a strong list of members and has carried out its mandate with integrity. 

Opposition members of this House have charged that the public complaints
commission will not be able to get to the bottom of the issues relating to
the APEC summit because its mandate is too narrow. 

The terms of reference in this particular hearing show clearly how broad the
scope of an inquiry can be. The APEC panel will hear all evidence and will
report on “the events that took place during or in conjunction with
demonstrations during the APEC conference in Vancouver”. 

The chair of the public complaints commission has stated that the panel will
follow the evidence where it leads and that the scope of the investigation
will be broad. 

Any questions regarding the RCMP operations prior to and during the APEC
summit are squarely
within the scope of this hearing. Continued attacks on the ability of the
PCC to investigate properly the APEC summit will undermine the integrity of
this body, which I might emphasize has developed a strong reputation over
the past 12 years for fairness and thoroughness in its deliberations. 

Members should be aware that the government has provided additional funding
to assist the commission to hold a very complex hearing in the public
interest. This funding will, for example, cover the administrative and
witness costs of the APEC hearing. A number of senior federal officials
from, for example, the PMO and DFAIT will testify at the hearing. 

I also stress that the government has co-operated fully, indeed has gone to
great lengths with the commission's council for the release of documents.
The government is just as interested as hon. members across the House in
seeing a full and complete independent inquiry into security at the APEC
summit. 

...

[end]



                                   
 
********************************************************************************
  For more information on Parliamentarians for East Timor, Please Contact:      
  Sharon Scharfe, International Secretariat                                     
  Parliamentarians for East Timor                                               
  Suite 116, 5929-L Jeanne D'Arc Blvd., Orleans, ON  K1C 7K2  CANADA            
  Fax: 1-613-834-2021                                                           
  E-Mail:  pet at web.net

********************************************************************************