[asia-apec 763] Cda Hansard, Oct.6/98, re: APEC'97

[Sharon R.A. Scharfe]

October 6, 1998
House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada

Official Transcript (English version only)

[English] 

The Speaker: Colleagues, I have notice of a question of privilege which is
in order and was received in time for it to be brought up at 10 o'clock
today. I recognize the hon. Solicitor General on a question of privilege. 

                                    *  *  *

                                PRIVILEGE 

                               APEC SUMMIT 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a question of privilege.

Yesterday my hon. colleague, the member of parliament for Palliser, made
some very serious charges in the House. The hon. member said that in the
course of a private conversation he overheard on a flight from Ottawa to
Fredericton that I discussed events relating to the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission inquiry into events at APEC. 

I categorically deny that I engaged in an inappropriate conversation that
would in any way prejudice the outcome of that inquiry. 

I was seated with another passenger in the course of a two hour flight from
Ottawa to Fredericton. We had a wide-ranging conversation covering various
subjects. At no time did I prejudge the outcome of the PCC inquiry, nor did
I suggest that my role was to prevent the Prime Minister from attending the
inquiry. 

First, I have much respect for the independence of the PCC and its civilian
oversight function. 

Second, I am determined to allow this inquiry to run its course and
establish what happened at APEC and why. 

Third, I fully understand the responsibilities of the Solicitor General and
would never jeopardize my
lawful duties. 

Finally, I am personally offended that the hon. member has chosen to impugn
my integrity, my ethics and my commitment to this process, particularly
since these attacks were made by a political opponent who spent two hours
eavesdropping on a private conversation. 

There were only two parties to this conversation, myself and Mr. Fred Toole.
I would now like to table a letter from Mr. Toole which supports what I have
just told the House. 

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to rise on this question of
privilege and to state for the record what really transpired. I am not going
to say anything further about what we discussed because this was a private
conversation. 

I have full confidence in the independence and impartiality of the PCC and I
would ask all hon. members to give the hearing process a chance to work. 

The Speaker: Colleagues, this is clearly not a question of privilege. It is
a dispute as to the facts, as they may or may not be, depending on one point
or the other. I am going to rule that it is not a question of privilege. The
statement is on the record, but it is not a question of privilege. 

Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, may I respond very briefly to say with great— 

The Speaker: I have ruled that this is not a question of privilege, as we
understand it in the House, so the matter is closed. 

I would add this addendum. I will not allow the tabling of this document at
this time. There are other means by which the minister can do this. 

With respect to the hon. member for Palliser, although his name was
mentioned in this non-question of privilege, at this point my ruling is that
there is not a question of privilege. Of course the hon. member has other
means at his disposal if he wishes to pursue any other points which he deems
to be valuable to this House. 

We are now going to proceed to the orders of the day. 

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if this is not considered a question of
privilege— 

The Speaker: I ask the hon. member if this deals with the question of
privilege that I have ruled on because that point is over. 

Hon. David Kilgour: No, Mr. Speaker, it is separate. The House can do
anything it wishes by unanimous consent. I would ask for unanimous consent
to table the letter in the House. 

The Speaker: We now have before us in this House a request for unanimous
consent from one of our members to table a document in this House. Does the
House give permission to put this question? 

Some hon. members: Agreed. 

An hon. member: No. 

The Speaker: Permission denied. 

Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me
that it is quite possible for the minister to table this document under
Tabling of Documents, which will happen in Routine Proceedings fairly shortly. 

Under Standing Order 32(1), a minister is allowed to table any document
relating to the administration of government. 

The Speaker: There is no question about that. The hon. parliamentary
secretary is correct. 

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely if the
minister is to make a statement or table a document in this House it should
pertain specifically to that which the minister is responsible for and not a
document that has been created to cover up any particular tracks in an
investigation. 

The Speaker: We are going to proceed with the rules of the House. The hon.
parliamentary secretary gave information to the House which is correct. Any
one of us can see that if we just look at the rules. 

I do not have anything in front of me right now except the statement that I
concurred with. Now we will proceed to the daily routine of business. 

...

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD 

[English] 

                              APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
when the solicitor general was questioned about his conversation on an
airplane concerning the APEC affair, he could not seem to recall anything at
all that he said. However, today, after counselling no doubt  from the spin
doctors, he categorically denies that he said anything inappropriate. 

How is it that the solicitor general could not recall any of that
conversation yesterday but today has total recall of that same conversation? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
this morning in the House, I categorically deny the allegations as I did
yesterday. 

We have established that the comments of the hon. member, I believe, were
titbits of words that were floating around in a noisy aircraft and are
unworthy of this place. 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the solicitor general said he could not even remember who sat next to him.
He did not know whether they were animal, mineral or vegetable. Today the
minister admits that his seatmate was a friend, a lawyer and a Liberal Party
supporter to boot. 

How is it that yesterday the solicitor general could not even remember the
gender of his seatmate and yet today recalls that it was a Liberal friend?
How did that happen? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
flown back and forth from Ottawa to Fredericton 300 times in the last five
years. I know most of the people on that aircraft and I do not recall in
each and every case whom it is that I sat with. 

I inquired and I found out. That is the truth. That is the answer. He will
have to live with it. 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
minister by his indiscretions has called into question the impartiality of
the whole public complaints commission inquiry into the APEC affair. Now he
has made matters worse by trying to cover up his own indiscretions with this
cock and bull story. 

Where is the minister's honesty? Where is his integrity? And where is— 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: Colleagues, I ask all of you to be very cautious in the words
you are using. The honesty of members is not questioned in this Chamber and
I would remind hon. members of that fact. Please choose your words very
carefully. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had a
conversation with the gentleman who sat on the plane. He substantiated my
story and I will not dignify that question with an answer. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general
in a few short hours has gone from “he was someone I don't know” to
“actually we have been good friends for some time”. 

He has gone from “I don't know who this person is. I don't know them by
name” to “it is Frederick Toole from Saint John”. Great scott, we have gone
from “I can't recall” to total recall and now to a rebuttal. When will we go
to the resignation? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has at least three inaccuracies in that question and I will not respond. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this story is getting
more outrageous by the minute every time he opens his mouth. 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North. 

Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this story is getting more
outrageous every time the minister opens his mouth. The commission is now
saying that it is worried about public trust in this whole instance. I am
sure the Solicitor General is the only person in the country who happens to
believe his own story. 

The commission is in doubt. The damage has been done. The gig is up. When
will he resign? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
process needs to work and it cannot be sabotaged by the innuendo of members
opposite.   

[Translation] 

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Solicitor General could not remember who he talked with on the flight
between Ottawa and Fredericton or what they spoke about. He could not even
remember whether the person was a man or a woman. 

But this morning, miracle of miracles, he remembered everything. He was
speaking to a longtime Liberal friend. 

How can the Prime Minister put his trust in a solicitor whose memory is so
weak and whose integrity is based solely on the vague testimony of a Liberal
partisan? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor
General made a statement to the House this morning. He tabled a letter from
the person on the trip with him. I think that it fully explains the situation. 

The facts speak for themselves. I am surprised. Members will have to be
careful, because tomorrow there will be people spying all around them. 

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every time a
scandal looms, the Prime Minister uses the same scenario. Here again, he is
doing so with the APEC story. 

First, the Prime Minister denies the evidence. Second, he finds a political
official, sometimes the Minister of Canadian Heritage, or the former
Minister of National Defence. Third, he orders an investigation to clear
himself. 

My question is simply this: When will he produce a letter of good behaviour
from the ethics commissioner? That is all that is lacking in the habitual
scenario. 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is
nothing the government wants more than for the commission of inquiry to do
its job as quickly as possible. 

A complaint was lodged about police behaviour, and we want to find out the
truth. Once the truth is known, we will act objectively. 

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is
clearly in a very difficult situation, with not just his credibility, but
also his job, at stake. 

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he admit that not only is the
Solicitor General in a very difficult situation, but that so is he, because
his credibility and his job are hanging by a thread, and that thread is the
testimony of a Liberal Party member and a friend of the minister? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one year and
four months ago, we were elected to office. Our mandate is very clear. 

The thread is a pretty hefty one; we hold more seats than any of the
opposition parties. 

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not
think he is asking Frederick D. Toole to shoulder quite a load, when Mr.
Toole, good Liberal that he is, realizes that his testimony alone could make
or break the government? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois does not have much of a point. 

We are merely saying that we want the commission to be able to begin its
work. In fact, it did so yesterday, and we hope that the testimony will be
heard. 

All those asked to testify went and volunteered to be present. I personally
am not in the least worried, because I know very well that everything is
done to respect international conventions, which require that the safety— 

The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister
but the leader of the New Democratic Party now has the floor. 

[English] 

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the
Prime Minister. The Solicitor General clearly failed to maintain the
impartiality required of him when he stated: “Four to
five Mounties overreacted for five minutes. I think it was excessive”.  

Canadians recognize the Solicitor General's remarks as prejudicial and
inappropriate. When will the Prime Minister do the same and demand the
resignation of the Solicitor General? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of
the NDP first claimed in this House that Gail Sparrow saw me giving orders,
yet she failed to apologize when Mrs. Sparrow later admitted she could not
hear what I was saying. Then the leader of the NDP charged that one of my
staff said that he had shredded documents, yet she failed to apologize when
the commission counsel refuted that claim. Then she said that one of my
special advisers phoned UBC president Martha Piper to intervene in a matter
related to security, yet the leader of the NDP— 

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

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even the Solicitor General
in this morning's carefully worded statement did not deny that he had made
these prejudicial comments. In fact his
failure to recognize that his inappropriate remarks are prejudicial, that
they are prejudicing the inquiry, is further evidence that he cannot do his
job. The Prime Minister has no choice but to demand his resignation. Why
will the Prime Minister not do that? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
intend to do so because I am watching the leader of the NDP once again
raising baseless allegations, based on selective eavesdropping by one of her
members, for which she should once again apologize. I thought the leader of
the NDP had greater ambition than to become the Linda Tripp of Canada. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this government has a record
of firing people who are competent and who do their jobs with independence
and integrity. It had the chief actuary of the Canada pension plan fired
because he refused to manipulate information on the CPP. It fired the chair
of the fisheries committee because his committee told the truth. The chair
of the foreign affairs committee was next. 

The Solicitor General proved his incompetence when he shared his
observations about the outcome of an ongoing investigation into the APEC
affair. Surely the Prime Minister must for once fire the— 

The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
this morning, I said nothing that would interfere with the process of the
PCC or with the outcome. That was substantiated by the person with whom I
was having a private conversation on the plane. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, is it not odd that the
Solicitor General can remember what he said yesterday when yesterday he
could not remember what he said the day
before? 

The Solicitor General was overheard prejudging the outcome of the APEC
investigation. He denied such prejudgment when asked in this House. Then
outside the House yesterday he claimed that he could not remember anything.
Today the Solicitor General admits that he had a conversation about APEC
with a personal friend which he should not have had. How can the Prime
Minister allow the Solicitor General to remain in his position and still
ensure the integrity of the APEC investigation? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we want to
have an inquiry we should let the inquiry be conducted by the people. The
inquiry started yesterday. Let them do their
work. 

If it is the only thing the member wants to talk about, then we have no
objections because we know the government has done nothing wrong. The police
discharged its responsibilities as it was its duty to do. If there was
something wrong the commission will find out. 

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the chairman of the Public Complaints Commission said that comments
attributed to the Solicitor General have hurt the public trust in the Public
Complaints Commission. 

My question is to the Prime Minister. His own Solicitor General said on
September 21 “We have to protect the integrity of that investigation to get
to the truth”. 

With the feeling in the Public Complaints Commission that their trust has
been affected, will the Prime Minister ask the Solicitor General to resign
until this matter is over? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
has denied, and it was confirmed by the lawyer who was travelling with him,
that they discussed anything that interfered with the work of the
commission. I am satisfied with the word of the minister and the word of the
lawyer— 

The Speaker: Colleagues, surely we should let the person answer the
question. Like many of you, I am having difficulty hearing the questions and
the answers. 

The Right Hon. Prime Minister had the floor. I am sorry I intervened. 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will just say that we want this
commission to do its work
as quickly as possible so that we will know all the facts. That is what this
House should wish and it is what the commission should do. The country will
be happy if we let them do their work. 

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday at 3.30 the Solicitor General was out in the lobby denying he ever
said what he said. By 5.30 last night there is a letter in Ottawa saying he
did— 

The Speaker: No props. 

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, there is a letter that was discussed this
morning by the minister. On September 21 the minister rose in this House
saying that it would be completely inappropriate to discuss any details
around this investigation. The minister obviously discussed this with a
friend on the airplane, which he did not remember last night but did a
couple of hours later. 

My question is to the Prime Minister. The minister did discuss it. He said
in this House he should not. Should he not resign until this commission is
over? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Solicitor
General would not have remained in his position had a friend of the Liberal
Party not qualified his remarks in the plane. 

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is a lawyer like Mr. Toole, whose
firm contributed $10,000 to the victory of the Liberal Party in the last
election, capable of qualifying the remarks he heard to save the skin of the
Solicitor General? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the lawyer in
question, a prominent citizen of New Brunswick, sent a letter, which is now
a public document. If the hon. member is saying that the lawyer is lying,
let him say so outside the House of Commons, and the lawyer can take the
appropriate action. 

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is
where the event is occurring and it is here we want to know whether the
Solicitor General should remain in his position. 

My question is as follows: As the Solicitor General, the minister for public
security in a way, is supposed to be above all suspicion, can he say that he
remains so in order to keep his position? We do not think so. 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
aware of my role as Solicitor General. I would not compromise it and I did
not compromise it. That is what I said yesterday. That is what I said today.
That is what has been substantiated by the person who sat with me on the plane. 

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is incredible.
First the minister cannot remember who he spoke to, what their gender was,
what the person said, and then, like in a soap opera, the 24-hour amnesia
passes and all of a sudden he discovers that the mystery passenger was his
good friend. 

That does not even pass the laugh test. Why does the minister not quit the
charade and just resign? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because
the story as recounted is absolutely accurate. I never remembered on Monday
who was on the plane the Thursday night before. I have taken this plane 300
times in the last five years with many of the same people. It is a
small community. 

I found out last night who it was. I had the conversation necessary to
remind myself of all the details and they were very consistent with what I
said in the House yesterday and what I said again today. 

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
mentions Linda Tripp. In the U.S. they have DNA tests. Here we will have to
start administering IQ tests. Mr. Speaker, in case— 

The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw those last remarks
about IQ tests. 

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. 

In case the minister does not remember, he is the Solicitor General. In case
he does not remember, he is in the House of Commons. In case he does not
remember, he does have some responsibilities, like telling Canadians exactly
what happened on that plane. Why does he not quit fooling around, quit with
the fairy tales and just resign? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
told the hon. member what happened in great detail and I stand by it. 

                                    *  *  *
...

[English] 

                              APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened
with great regret and concern about what has happened in this House and what
we have heard in here today. I have heard denials in the face of the facts. 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, we have heard denials in the face of the
facts. We have heard contradictions by the solicitor general. We have heard
excuses and not apologies. The solicitor  general of our country is simply
not believable. 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

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

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister very simply, will he
stand in the House right now and ask for the solicitor general's resignation? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly not.
At 10 o'clock this morning the solicitor general made a statement from his
seat in the House. He confirmed his statement with a letter from the lawyer
who was travelling with him on the plane. 

I am satisfied with the explanation of the solicitor general. I wish the
House of Commons would let the commission do its work. 

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a little
difficult to do the work when we are faced with what we are faced with
today. This is about compromising a public inquiry. This is about covering
up for the Prime Minister's office. 

The only reason the solicitor general should be on his feet today is to
stand up with his resignation. 

I would like to ask the Prime Minister once again, if he cannot get a
resignation, will he fire the solicitor general? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member just said he wanted to know what happened in the office of the Prime
Minister. Without being requested, my chief of staff and the other person
who has been mentioned have offered to testify. They did not wait for a
subpoena, they have offered to testify. I am very anxious to know what they
will say, because I know what I have discussed with them and I have nothing
to fear. 

                                    *  *  *
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the
solicitor general had a particular story to tell in the scrum outside of
here. On Tuesday he came up with a completely different story. First he did
not know him and now he knows him. There have been all kinds of details back
and forth. Between story number one and story number two, I would like to
ask the solicitor general, which story is the truth? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
asked questions in the House yesterday and I answered them honestly and to
the best of my recollection. Last night I explored further what happened
last Thursday and consequently I remembered more parts of the story. This is
human nature. This is exactly what happened. It is the absolute truth and I
stand by it. 

Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor
general is digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole. The solicitor
general is one of the two law officers of the crown in this House. If
anybody ought to be interested in protecting the integrity of this inquiry,
it is he. 

In that he has reflected badly on the inquiry, why does he not do the
responsible and honourable thing and stand in this House and offer his
resignation? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I sat here
for two weeks defending the inquiry. When allegations were made that I said
something that would prejudice the
exercise or the outcome of the inquiry, I denied it immediately. I denied it
this morning and I deny it
now. 

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, now that his memory bank has
kicked back in and the solicitor general recalls the name of his seatmate on
flight 8876 last Thursday night and that he said to Fred D. Toole “It will
come out in the inquiry that four to five Mounties overreacted for five
minutes. No one knows this. I think it was excessive”, will the solicitor
general not agree that those were precisely the words that he used? Will he
admit it here in his place this afternoon? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, those
are not the words
that I used. 

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest from now on
that perhaps the solicitor general could get the keys for the Challenger
from the minister responsible for heritage
because he should be taking that flight. 

My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The solicitor general
said last week that he— 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: My colleagues, we will hear the question. The hon. member for
Palliser. 

Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general said very clearly last
Thursday night that he really wanted to go to the baseball play-offs and the
World Series but he could not because he was covering for the Prime Minister. 

I think the Prime Minister should do the honourable thing, allow this man to
go to the World Series—and the play-offs are tonight at eight o'clock and
there is still time for him to get here—relieve him of his portfolio and let
him go. 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first we will
have to check that the member is not renting the seat behind him so he can
listen to the comments. This used to be a House where there were some rules
that applied among members that seem not to exist in the mind of this
reporter for the National Enquirer. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the very
process which the solicitor general has so vigorously defended has now been
compromised by his own irresponsibility. His feeble defence of tabling a
letter from Frederick Toole is proof that he discussed APEC publicly. This
is contrary to the previous statements that he could say nothing on APEC and
is the equivalent of President Clinton's famous line “I did not have sexual
relations with that woman”.  

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

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

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in light of this controversy, will the
solicitor general now show some integrity, take responsibility for his
actions and resign immediately? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I took
responsibility for my actions. I looked into the allegations. They were
false. I said that here this morning. It is the case.
There is no necessity and I want to protect this process. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, do
Canadians have to wait for the solicitor general's next flight home for
straight answers on this issue? 

The Prime Minister has spent weeks hiding from Canadians on APEC. He hid
behind his spin doctors who attacked APEC witnesses. He hid behind the
solicitor general who will not talk about this issue in the House, but loves
to talk about it on Air Canada. Now the Prime Minister's human shield, the
solicitor general, is a human sieve. 

Will the Prime Minister himself answer questions on this issue and demand
the solicitor general's resignation? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have an
inquiry going on. Evidently they are not interested to know what happened.
They just want to have something to attack the government on. They might be
suffering the problem of scandal envy because there has not been a big
problem in this government for the last five years. 

I am telling the House that we want to know exactly what happened between
the students and the police. We are very anxious for the commission to find
out and tell everyone what happened on that afternoon. 

                                    *  *  *
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general
has tried to explain away his actions, saying that he has a letter from a
friend that makes it all okay. Mr. Speaker, you will excuse us if we do not
think that explains anything away. 

The public complaints commissioner this morning said that the actions of the
solicitor general have broken the trust Canadians have in this commission.
Does the solicitor general not see that he should resign until such time as
the commission has done its work? Can he not see that? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I can
correct the hon. member, the chair was referring to the allegations which I
have denied and I stand here and deny them once again. 

                                    *  *  *  
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the solicitor general to test his deep commitment to the RCMP Public
Complaints Commission. 

Yesterday the commission agreed to once again strongly urge the federal
government to provide legal funds for the student complainants at the APEC
hearings. At the same time the federal government has hired yet another
high-priced lawyer, David Scott, to its team. 

In view of the minister's constant urging to let the commission do its work,
will he now listen to the commissioners, to the federal court, to his own
Liberal colleague from the UBC area and extend full
legal funding to the student complainants at the APEC hearing? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I await
the letter and I would advise the member that we increased the amount of
money available to the PCC for this inquiry by
$650,000. 

...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here is what we
have heard today. We have heard the solicitor general tell two different
stories. We have heard about his friend who admits he has known him for 15
years, and the solicitor general says he did not know who he was. 

It is clear that no matter what he intended through this letter the
impression given by what has happened is that he has compromised the
integrity of the PCC. In summary, I ask when this will minister resign. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I feel
very strongly about the issue of civilian oversight. I have said that for
the last few weeks. I will defend that process here and I will defend it
against the hearsay that is coming from across the floor. 

                                    *  *  *

...

[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

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