[asia-apec 770] Cda Hansard, Oct.8/98, re: APEC'97

[Sharon R.A. Scharfe]

October 8, 1998
Hansard
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
Official Transcript (English Version)

...

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD 

[English] 

                              APEC SUMMIT 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was the good
news. Now the bad news. Within the last hour the lawyer for the students
represented at the APEC hearings has filed  a motion to kill the commission
because of the solicitor general's conversation about the commission, how he
compromised that system which he so piously defended. 

When is the government going to ask the solicitor general to resign his
place in cabinet? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): I am surprised, Mr. Speaker,
that the hon. member did not get up to congratulate the government on
Canada's overwhelming election to the security council. 

The hon. member shows a very misguided sense of priorities in her question.
There is no doubt that the minister is an outstanding minister who has the
confidence of the Prime Minister, the government and our entire caucus. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): That is great, Mr. Speaker. He may
have the confidence of the benches on the other side but certainly not the
Canadian people. 

The commission is going to hear this motion on Tuesday. It will be before
the commission. The member for Palliser is going to appear and testify under
oath about the conversation he heard on the plane between the solicitor
general and his buddy Fred Toole. 

I would like to ask the solicitor general now, after all the clapping and
the cheering on that side, will he stand up right now and say he will
testify under oath, yes or no? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
in the House many times, the invitation as to who is going to participate in
these hearings is at the discretion of the  public complaints commission. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a
motion on the
floor of that place to kill the commission because he has poisoned that
process so badly. 

Now the premier of New Brunswick has come forward and corroborated the story
of the member for Palliser. This is getting more serious by the day. The
government cannot have it both ways. It  cannot cherry pick. It has already
acknowledged that the member for Palliser has it right. 

The minister can run from the truth but he cannot hide from the facts. The
solicitor general has compromised his office, he has undermined the
commission and he has refused to testify under oath. So there is only one
question left. When will he resign? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this line
of questioning is based on a despicable act of eavesdropping, unworthy of
this place and offensive to fair minded Canadians. 

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. 

In jurisprudence there is an expression, notes taken at the time. In trials
judges regularly ask police officers to refer to their notes made at the
time to refresh their memories and these are considered
admissible as evidence. 

The information released by the member for Palliser regarding the solicitor
general's conversation is from notes made at the time. 

Can the justice minister, as chief attorney, tell the House how the
solicitor general can claim some of these notes are true and some are false? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had a
chance to glance at copies of the hon. member for Palliser's notes. I want
to say those chicken scratches show the hon.
member is certainly not a certified shorthand reporter. 

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these
notes have been taken as evidence by the public complaints commission in
Vancouver. 

Yesterday the Prime Minister said: “I cannot have a better witness than the
member for Palliser”. 

The notes are before a public complaints commission the solicitor general
oversees. We cannot have the chief officer of that commission sitting as
solicitor general while notes that are saying he did something against that
commission are before the commission and under investigation. 

Will the Prime Minister have the solicitor general resign until this
commission is over with? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the law is clear,
a law brought into this parliament by a party the hon. member used to be
affiliated with, that this commission is at arm's length from the minister
and at arm's length from the government. It is an independent body. It wants
to do its work. I do not know why the hon. member wants to use the floor of
the House of Commons to impede the commission from carrying out the work it
has been given by a law passed by this parliament. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor
general is trying to convince us that what he said in a plane was not
serious because the conversation was in private. 

Is he telling us that he is perfectly entitled to discuss affairs of state
with just anybody, anywhere, so long as he does so in private and there are
not too many people around to hear. 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
Solicitor General of Canada, I am very proud of the correctional service and
the RCMP. I have discussions all the time about the pride that I feel for
those organizations and the work they do. I will continue to do that. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor
general is very proud of himself and the Liberals are very proud of him.
They are the only people in Canada who are very proud of him. 

Since we started questioning him on the APEC scandal, the solicitor general
has said he cannot comment in this House, because the scandal is before a
commission of inquiry. 

What principle gives the solicitor general the right to talk to his Liberal
friends about the APEC scandal, while he refuses to discuss it here in this
House before members of parliament, as it is his duty and responsibility to do? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite the
contrary. Many times in the House I have discussed my faith in the public
complaints commission and how important that instrument is as a civilian
oversight instrument. I discuss it regularly. I believe in the process and I
wish members would let it work. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said
yesterday that, had the solicitor general spoken of the Airbus affair in the
plane, he would have dealt differently with him. 

Could the Prime Minister explain why discussion of the Airbus scandal is
serious enough to warrant dismissing the minister, while discussion of the
APEC matter, which is also under investigation, is  not serious and he will
do nothing? Why the double standard? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have
said many times, I did not discuss anything inappropriate. That has been
substantiated by the gentleman who sat beside
me.  

I talked about the public complaints commission and that I had all the faith
in the world in that
commission, and I have. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can it be that a
minister who does not know better than to talk about his business in public
could have sufficient judgement to know that
what he said can be prejudicial to an inquiry? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
never say anything that would be prejudicial to the process or to an ongoing
investigation. 

I can speak very proudly of the civilian oversight history in this country.
The public complaints
commission is a part of that, I support that commission and I wish members
would let it do its work. 

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House both
the Prime Minister and the solicitor general accused me of fabricating my
story. 

I stand in my place today to tell this House and the Canadian people I swear
now that I am telling the truth. I would swear under oath that I am telling
the truth. The solicitor general, better than anyone else, knows what happened. 

Will he now withdraw his allegation? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
contrary. The member for Palliser made serious allegations based on his
eavesdropping on a private conversation on a noisy aircraft. 

That report has been discredited. I denied those allegations with the
support of the person to whom I was speaking. I think it is reprehensible
that an hon. member would stoop to this kind of tactic. 

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, far more in sadness than in
anger I say that the  solicitor general continues to question my honesty. 

I give the minister one more chance to withdraw these allegations, or is he
calling me a liar? 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: The question as put is in order. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said,
the hon. member has taken snippets of a conversation that he eavesdropped on
and put them together as facts. 

There are many inaccuracies in that report. He suggested I had said
something that would prejudice the process or outcome of the public
complaints commission. 

It has been established by the person sitting beside me that was not the
case. I stand by my story. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, when it suits the Prime
Minister he likes to use the words of the member for Palliser to defend the
solicitor general. The member for Palliser is reported as saying: “The
solicitor general lied in the House of Commons”. 

The Speaker: Colleagues, we are not allowed to use words in this House used
by someone else outside the House that we ourselves are not allowed to use.
I want the hon. member to withdraw that statement and I would like her to go
directly to her question, please. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw and I will go directly to the
question. 

Why has the solicitor general not taken the very action the Prime Minister
has threatened to take in the past if the statements made by the member for
Palliser are not true? Is it because the solicitor general's friend, Fred
Toole, would not be able to corroborate the solicitor general's version of
the remarks he made about APEC under oath? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said,
the member for Palliser alleged that I had said something that would
compromise the Public Complaints Commission exercise both by way of process
and by way of the outcome, and I denied that. That denial has been
substantiated by the person with whom I was speaking on the airplane. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, only the solicitor general
and the Prime Minister believe the solicitor general's changing versions of
his APEC chat in the air. They use the statements made by the member for
Palliser to defend the solicitor general when it suits them and deny or
refuse to confirm other statements when it does not. 

Why will the Prime Minister not stop letting the solicitor general undermine
that office and the smidgen of integrity that is left in this government and
ask the solicitor general to resign? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
reiterate that the Prime Minister, the government and the caucus have
confidence in the minister. He is a fine minister and he is doing a good job. 

I guess the hon. member does not care about veterans any more. What happened
to her priority with respect to veterans? What happened to her party's
concern about the economy? Is that all she has to talk about is this issue,
which has been more than adequately and effectively answered by the
solicitor general? 

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime
Minister stood in his place and said “I could not have a better witness than
the member for Palliser”. He then said that he was nothing but a snoop and
tried to discredit him. 

Today I think the Prime Minister should change his mind one more time. Will
he change his mind and now ask for the resignation of the solicitor general? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
reiterate that the Prime Minister has no intention of doing that. I know
there is a new unholy alliance between the Reform Party and the other right
wing parties, the Conservatives and the NDP, but that does not make what
they are saying right. 

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Palliser
stood in this place and vowed that he would swear under oath to the veracity
of his statements. 

The solicitor general has not denied the statements and will not testify
under oath. Meanwhile the lawyer for the students has said that the
testimony of the solicitor general has compromised the commission and is
asking for it to be shut down. 

Will the solicitor general do the right thing, realize he has compromised
his position as well as the
commission's and resign? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
situation here is extremely clear. 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I could not have imagined that in this country
the principles of fundamental justice could be parked so eagerly in the
interest of political theatre. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is
perfectly clear in this matter is that the version given by the Solicitor
General, who is trying to save his skin, contradicts the
version of the hon. member, who has nothing to gain except bringing out the
truth. 

How— 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval. 

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is the minister
responsible for internal security. He is the one responsible for state
secrets. The portfolio is so different from the others that newly appointed
Solicitors General are given more training about security than other ministers. 

How can the man responsible for security in Canada not understand that the
words he spoke, as reported by the hon. member, are unseemly and
incompatible with his position? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand my responsibilities very well and I live by them proudly. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the Deputy Prime
Minister was Solicitor General, he never got into such a situation because
he understood he needed to keep his mouth shut.  That is what Solicitors
General have to learn, and this one did not. 

Someone from a foreign power, someone with an interest in getting some
information on Canada, could have been the one sitting close to the
Solicitor General on that plane, so what he was saying did constitute a risk
to national security. How can a man in charge of national security behave in
such a way as to endanger the— 

The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General. 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
allegations made against me in terms of inappropriately speaking about the
Public Complaints Commission by way of process or outcome have been denied.
That denial has been substantiated by the gentleman with whom I was speaking
directly, not an aisle and a half away. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister said one day “When confidence is lost, the system no longer works”.
How things change after five years in office. 

Canadians no longer have confidence in the Solicitor General, who is still
with us. Why is the government not keeping its word? 

[English]   

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
clear what is happening. Members opposite have embraced inaccurate
observations, snippets from a very noisy
aircraft that have been put together as truth. 

There are many inaccuracies in these statements, including in my own
constituency the name of the St. Mary's First Nation. It turned up across an
aisle as St. Michael's. That is just an example. 

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the syndrome called recovered
memory syndrome was largely discredited in medical circles. 

The solicitor general's sudden recovery of memory has actually discredited
him, both in this House and through the rest of the country. 

Which one of this cabinet will stand up and finally say “We are going to
fire the flyer”? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see
from the hon. member's question that he is now satisfied with the
government's approach to the tragedy of hep C
victims. 

[Translation] 

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Solicitor General. The Prime Minister has claimed that the remarks of
his minister have no impact on the commission of inquiry. They caused RCMP
officials to say in Vancouver yesterday that they were not prepared to take
the blame for anyone else in the Peppergate scandal. 

Can the Solicitor General not see that his chats are far from neutral, that
they are having serious repercussions for the inquiry and that he must
really step down? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
House on Tuesday I advised that the allegations made against me were not
accurate. My statement on Tuesday was supported by the gentleman who was
sitting beside me on the plane, with whom I was having a private
conversation, not somebody eight feet away, a seat and an aisle away, on a
noisy plane. 

[Translation] 

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor
General must realize that since his chat in the plane, the RCMP is in a
state, secret agents are giving interviews and the media talks of nothing
else, from coast to coast. 

What does it take to get the Solicitor General to do what duty requires he
do—resign? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think anyone in this country would want the government to make decisions
based on inaccurate information. 

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in this government
when cabinet ministers are having problems—and yes, we do have a cabinet
minister with a problem, and we have been at it all week—the Prime Minister
usually will not allow the minister to resign. The Prime Minister usually
waits until he can shuffle the cabinet minister out the back door. 

Instead of waiting for the next cabinet shuffle, why will the Prime Minister
not just let the solicitor general do the honourable thing and resign? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has said that he has confidence in the solicitor general and that
he is doing a fine job. There is no reason the Prime Minister should follow
the precedent of the Leader of the Opposition and kick people out of the
caucus completely or sentence them to the back row because he does not like
the way they are disagreeing with him. That is no precedent for this party
or for anybody else in this House. 

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in his idealistic youth as
Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said: “Integrity and honesty are the
cornerstones of this government”. That was 1996—

Some hon. members: Hear, hear. 

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Will the Deputy Prime Minister now prove that statement
and fire the solicitor general? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
rather uncharacteristic endorsement of the Prime Minister's policies by the
hon. Reform member. It is because of the Prime Minister's daily proof of
commitment to these policies that he is not going to follow the unwarranted
advice of the Reform Party or any other opposition party in this matter. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General. 

Since the Solicitor General has demonstrated his flagrant lack of judgment
to all, since he has failed to convince anyone other than perhaps his
Liberal colleagues of his version of the facts, since his arguments do not
stand up to those of the member for Palliser, will he, in a flash of
lucidity, submit his resignation right now? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Tuesday in this House I denied the allegations that were made with regard to
the process of the Public Complaints Commission or its outcome. That denial
was substantiated by the gentleman with whom I was speaking on the aircraft
at that time and not by someone a seat and an aisle away. 

                                    *  *  *
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor
general, the guardian of this nation's most sensitive information, has loose
lips. His loose lips violated the elementary rule of policing, that you only
release information on a need to know basis. As a former RCMP officer, the
nation's top cop is a major security risk because he cannot follow this
rule. When will the Prime Minister ask the minister for his resignation? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not accept
the premise of the hon. member's question regarding the way the hon.
solicitor general has carried out his duties. He is a fine minister and he
deserves the support of all members of this House. 

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general
has lost the confidence of this House. He has lost the confidence of
Canadians. He should be gone today, not in the next cabinet shuffle. If
fingering your employees will not do it, if jeopardizing ongoing
investigations will not do it, what will do it? How low does the bar have to
go, Mr. Prime Minister? 

The Speaker: Colleagues I remind you to please address your questions to the
Chair. The hon. solicitor general. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this line
of questioning is based on a despicable tactic of eavesdropping. The results
of that exercise have been discredited in fact. I would not want to think
that Canadians would see this government making decisions based on that kind
of inaccurate information. 

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in his notes the
member for Palliser wrote that the solicitor general said he was going to
have an international college of correctional studies built in Fredericton.
Yet an aide to the minister said that could not be because the only site
that was being considered was Kingston. Now we have the premier of New
Brunswick, Mr. Thériault, saying that he discussed this several times with
the solicitor general and credited the solicitor general with working hard
on the file. 

Is the premier of New Brunswick fabricating a story, or do we now know very
clearly where the fabrication is coming from? 

The Speaker: Colleagues, yesterday I permitted the word fabricated or
fabrication to be used in the House but I would much prefer that you do not
use that word in this question period. I am going to allow the solicitor
general to answer the question, but I do not want the word fabricated used. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again
as I said earlier, the
story that was put forward by the hon. member for Palliser was drawn from
snippets of words  coming across the aircraft. As a consequence the hon.
member has mentioned the facility. Unfortunately he got the location wrong
and there was another different project that I have been working on in the
province with the premier and that is the basis of the mistake. 

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there comes a time
in these kinds of affairs when a cabinet minister knows that he is a
liability to the process no matter what he believes to be true about
himself. The minister has arrived at that point. Whatever he believes about
himself he should see clearly that he is now a liability to the process
going on in Vancouver and he should do the right thing and resign. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
more respect for fundamental justice than to do that. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1996
the Prime Minister accepted the resignation of the member for Don Valley
East when he breached the government's supposed ethical standards. 

Yesterday the solicitor general admitted to discussing the location for the
centre for correctional justice, a cabinet decision that could lead to a
commercial advantage to insider information from the solicitor general. 

Will the Prime Minister please explain why the member for Don Valley East
lost his cabinet position and the solicitor general keeps his? Why the
double standard? 

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
double standard here except in the hon. member's own mind. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, there are
double standards around here lately. 

The solicitor general needs to be one of the most discreet and security
conscious members of the cabinet, as does the Minister of Justice. He needs
to be trusted by our police, our intelligence,  agents and our allies. In
one conversation the solicitor general destroyed that trust. He spoke of
APEC, Frank Moores and a pork barrel project in his riding. He cannot
separate the private from the public. 

This is inappropriate behaviour on his part. It is a firing offence. When
will the solicitor general resign? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, serious
allegations were made. I stood in the House. I responded to those
allegations. They were inaccurate. I established that the gentleman whom I
was speaking with substantiated that those allegations were inaccurate. 
 
I do not feel any obligation to discuss a private conversation that has
nothing inappropriate with regard to my job, that was overheard on an
aircraft by an eavesdropper. 

                                    *  *  *
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I missed
the punchline on that last commercial from that side. 

I have a question for the top police officer in the country, the chief
administrator of law enforcement. I want to check the facts on this letter. 

Mr. Toole's letter does not corroborate the solicitor general's story. The
letter is very carefully and legally crafted by a lawyer to say nothing. 

My question for the solicitor general is, is he calling the member for
Palliser a liar? 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: The question as it is put is in order. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike my
hon. colleague from Palliser, I would never question someone's honesty. I am
simply questioning the accuracy of his hearing. 

[Translation] 

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Solicitor General. 

In the light of all these events, will the Solicitor General not now
acknowledge that it is time to bow out, with dignity? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no. 

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the solicitor general. 

I have heard the solicitor general say many times in this place that he
really believes in the process, he believes in the commission, he cares
about that commission and its process. I ask him now does he not see that
regardless of what he thinks about the matter, he now has a duty to absent
himself from this in the name of the work of the commission and the
confidence that Canadian people have to have in that process? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe
profoundly in fundamental justice. I think it is being convoluted in this
place to impugn my integrity. In the name of my integrity, I remain the
Solicitor General of Canada. 

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, CBC this morning is
reporting that New Brunswick Premier Camille Thériault had full knowledge of
a correctional college to be built in
New Brunswick, the same correctional college that the member for Palliser
overheard the solicitor
general discussing on a very public plane. 

The member for Palliser could not make this up. In fact, he heard all too
well the solicitor general breaking secrets in public. Will the solicitor
general not do the honourable thing? Will he recognize his error in
judgment? Will he resign? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never
suggested that he made it up. He just got it wrong. 

                                    *  *  *
...

[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


"... where there are profits to be defended, law, justice, freedom,
democracy and peace are the victims."  -- Xanana Gusmao, Jailed Leader of
East Timor in Preface to "Complicity: Human Rights and Canadian Foreign
Policy -- the Case of East Timor" (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1996). 
****************************************************************************
*********************************************