[asia-apec 686] Cda. Hansard, Sept. 21, re: APEC '97

[Sharon R.A. Scharfe]

September 21, 1998
House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada

excerpts from official hansard
-----

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD 

[English] 

                              APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
documents, memos and
e-mails from the privy council office, the prime minister's office and the
RCMP indicate that the Prime Minister was directly involved in the security
arrangements for the APEC summit in Vancouver. 

Why has the Prime Minister been denying his involvement for almost a year
when all the evidence
points to the fact that he bent over backwards to protect an Asian dictator
not from violence but from political embarrassment? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an
inquiry being held at
the moment on this matter. I do not want to comment on the incident. 

During the APEC summit we received 19 leaders from countries around the
world. We had the
president of the United States, the president of China, the prime minister
of Australia, the president of the Philippines and many others. As the
government it was our duty to ensure their security in Canada. 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
story has been coming
out in dribs and drabs. The Indonesian bodyguards were given the right to
shoot Canadian
demonstrators. Canadians were arrested for holding up signs which stated
such subversive things as democracy and human rights. The protesters were
pepper sprayed because they might have been seen by APEC leaders. 

The Prime Minister has a chance today to clear the air. Exactly what did he
direct his officials to do
with respect to APEC security? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was the
responsibility of the
RCMP to ensure the security of all the leaders who came to Canada. There was
an incident and a
committee is now reviewing the incident. It was our responsibility to ensure
that all the national leaders who came to Canada would be received in a very
safe way, which is exactly what happened. 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
want answers,
not evasions. 

According to an official in the privy council office working on security
arrangements for the APEC
summit: “The Prime Minister will want to be personally involved”. Canadians
want to know the extent therefore to which the Prime Minister was personally
involved in the security arrangements for APEC. 

Why did the Prime Minister trample on the political rights of Canadian
citizens in order to protect an
Asian dictator? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, arrangements
were made by local
authorities in Vancouver to ensure order was maintained. Protesters were in
areas where everyone could see them. If the Leader of the Opposition had
been in Vancouver at that time he would have seen the protesters that some
of my ministers and all the members of the delegation saw during their visit. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
deliberately ordered
police to quash peaceful protesters. Canadians want to know why and what it
was he said. 

Why was the Prime Minister more concerned about the feelings of a foreign
dictator than he was about protecting the rights of our own Canadian citizens? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public
complaints
commission is investigating the incidents around the APEC meetings. I think
that institution, which has been in existence since 1986, has established a
good record and deserves the opportunity to get to the bottom of this. That
is how Canadians will find out the answers to the questions. 

  Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to
know what the
Prime Minister will do about this and where his fingerprints are all over
this deal. 

The RCMP had to stare down these bodyguards and Canadians want to know why
the Prime Minister gave in to a foreign dictator who uses goons with guns.
Why would that be? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public
complaints
commission has existed for a long time. It has done very good work. I think
it has the confidence of
Canadians. It certainly has the confidence of the government. Consequently I
think members opposite should let the appropriate tribunal, at arm's length
from the government, do its job and get to the bottom of this. 

                                    *  *  *
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime
Minister and his
staff made a decision to sacrifice the democratic rights of Canadians in
order to create a comfort zone for a brutal foreign dictator. Today I ask
the Prime Minister one simple question. Was it worth it? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the security
rules applied in
Vancouver were applied for the protection of all the leaders of the 19
countries there on that occasion. There were problems. Some people from
other delegations were not comfortable. Some even protested to me because
they saw some signs they did not like. I told them that it is Canada, that I
see protests all the time, that it is the way Canada operates, that real
democracy is applied here. It was a good example to the others to see that
people can protest— 

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

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want their Prime
Minister to be a
statesman, not a doormat for brutal foreign dictators. Will the Prime
Minister admit today that he was wrong to put the dictates and the demands
of a brutal foreign dictator ahead of the democratic rights and civil
liberties of Canadians? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an inquiry has
begun on that. I
have to repeat that we had 19 leaders in Canada. We had to offer them a
secure place. There was
room for protesters. Perhaps there was some problem at the last hour of the
last day. The solicitor
general has a mechanism at arm's length from the government that is dealing
with that. It will conduct its inquiry. We will look at the report and advise. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in
January that RCMP
investigations are not the responsibility of political authorities, and I
agree. Canadians now know the RCMP believes the prime minister's office
wanted the RCMP to remove banners at the APEC summit. An RCMP memo states:
“Banners are not a security issue. They are a political issue”. 

Could the Prime Minister tell us who in his office made the political
decision to have the RCMP remove banners and signs at the APEC meeting? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they do not
know. When I was
there I saw signs and banners in protest against me and against others. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is a government that
does not believe in
justice for all the innocent victims of tainted blood. Should we wonder that
it would pepper spray
Canadians? 

The Prime Minister agreed with the solicitor general who said in January
that his role was “not to
interfere with the operation of the RCMP”. I ask the solicitor general, the
minister responsible for the RCMP, to tell us who ordered the political
interference, who gave the RCMP the order to tear down banners, banners that
were a political issue, not a security issue. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to be
specific, I am also the
minister responsible for the public complaints commission which is why that
organization is getting to the bottom of this right now. 

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for
the Prime Minister. It is about the signs at APEC he has been talking about.
On November 25, 1997 at the APEC conference, UBC law student Craig Jones was
arrested and jailed without charge after he refused to remove signs that
said free speech, democracy and human rights. 

Does the Prime Minister not agree that this clear violation of free speech
and civil rights is contrary to the Canadian way? Should those people not
get an apology? 

  
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
subjects that are being
asked about right now are subjects that are being investigated by the
appropriate administrative tribunal. I think it is appropriate for
parliament to give it the opportunity to do its job. 

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
parliament does not
need to wait for a Liberal appointed commission to tell us that people's
free rights, that their freedom of speech is violated. 

On November 21 at the APEC conference the RCMP told Karen Pearlston that if
she did not remove a sign from her home, she would be arrested. When she
asked why, they told her that the Prime Minister did not want to embarrass
our visitors. 

This is a violation of her human rights, of her freedom of speech. We do not
need to wait for anybody to tell us that this is wrong. Will this minister,
the Prime Minister or this government not apologize to those British
Columbians whose human rights and freedom of speech were violated? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact it
was parliament that
made the decision to establish the public complaints commission in 1986. It
functioned for 12 years quite effectively and I am sure it will do its job
well again. 

                                    *  *  *
...

[Translation] 

                              APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Prime Minister. 

The government is hiding behind the RCMP investigation to avoid answering
any question on the role played by the Prime Minister in repressing the
demonstration against dictator Suharto in Vancouver. 

Does the Prime Minister recognize having participated, either directly or
through his cabinet, in setting up the security measures applied in Vancouver? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it
is important for
everybody to understand exactly the process at play here. 

The public complaints commission is an institution that was established by
parliament specifically to deal with complaints against the RCMP. That is
why it is called the public complaints commission. 

I wish that the members opposite would give that organization the
opportunity to do its job as parliament would have it do it. 

[Translation] 

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for
the videotape. 

The former Indonesian ambassador to Canada said he had received from the
Prime Minister himself the assurance that all would be done to avoid
embarrassment for bloodthirsty dictator Suharto. 

Does the Prime Minister confirm this statement? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the
questions being raised
are subject to this inquiry. As I said, I think we should let that inquiry
do its job. 

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on today of all days
the United States
has spent $40 million and seven months with the president prevaricating and
trying to turn away
answers to the obvious questions. 

We are asking the Prime Minister right now to save the money. Will the Prime
Minister admit that he
was involved in this process? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
members opposite are
displaying a remarkable lack of understanding as to how these processes
work. The administrative
tribunal is available to the public to seek recourse when it believes there
has been a grievance. That is the process in play. I have high regard for
that process, as I believe most Canadians do and I would ask the hon. member
to join them. 

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we very clearly
understand what the
process is. The process is called cover-up. That is exactly what is going on
in this case. 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

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

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister one more time,
will he do it here and
do it now? Will he admit that his fingerprints are all over this process,
that he is fully responsible for the fact that democratic rights of
Canadians were taken away as a public statement, a political statement by him? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
appeal to the members
opposite to recognize the appropriate role for the public complaints
commission that was established by parliament. It deserves our support and I
would ask the members opposite to give it to the commission. 

                                    *  *  *
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister
should really learn from the president of the United States, his golfing
buddy, that the longer he bobs and weaves to avoid public accountability on
this issue, the more he will undermine the integrity of his office and his
government. 

There are numerous documents that indicate direct interference of the Prime
Minister and his office in the RCMP security of the APEC summit. 

Will the Prime Minister make a full ministerial statement in the House, this
public forum, on his role in the affair, or is he going to persist with his
slippery guy from Shawinigan routine? 

The Speaker: Colleagues, I urge you to be very judicious in your choice of
words. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member should know
that documents he is referring to, the allegations that have been made and
the questions that have been put are all subject to a public complaints
commission review. That review is being undertaken right now. 

It does a discredit to those Canadians who choose to serve their country as
members of that
commission to suggest in any way that their integrity should be in question.
That does a disservice to this exercise and to the truth. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, what does a
discredit to this institution is the fact that answers are given in this House. 

The Prime Minister and the solicitor general know full well that the RCMP
public complaints
commission is not holding a criminal proceeding. There is absolutely nothing
to prevent the government from answering questions in the House. Instead,
the Prime Minister is hiding his role in oppressing innocent Canadians to
appease a foreign dictator. 

Why is he afraid to talk about this issue in this House? When can we expect
the Prime Minister to
show some integrity and leadership on this issue? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
shocking that the
member opposite as a critic for the solicitor general would not be aware
that it would be completely
inappropriate for the minister responsible for that tribunal to speak to it
in this House during the
investigation. 

                                    *  *  *
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, generally, when the
Prime Minister
sees fit, in a matter of great importance, to become involved in an area
that comes under the
responsibility of one of his ministers, he consults the minister in question
in order to determine the best way to proceed. 

My question is for the Solicitor General. Did the Prime Minister consult him
before ordering the RCMP to violate the constitutional freedom of expression
and assembly of a group of students during the APEC summit last year? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member
opposite shows a
tremendous misunderstanding as to how this works. 

The reality is that the security questions are handled by the RCMP specific
to the kinds of questions that are being investigated by the public
complaints commission. The public complaints commission is going to get to
the bottom of this. That is what parliament has mandated it to do and I have
every confidence it will do it well. 

                                    *  *  *
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is to
the Minister of
Foreign Affairs on the APEC summit. 

According to a memo written by Canada's ambassador to Indonesia, our
Minister of Foreign Affairs
apologized to Indonesia's foreign minister for the anti-Suharto poster
campaign in Canada, saying that it was “outrageous, excessive and not the
way Canadians behave”. 

Will the minister now apologize to Canadian students and indeed to all
Canadians— 

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
thing the hon.
member conveniently forgets is that during the APEC conference this
government provided substantial financial support for the people's summit
where all kinds of groups that had opposition to APEC had an opportunity to
come together to voice their concerns. Ministers met with that group. They
passed on the message to the leaders of APEC so that full open discussion
could take place. 

It is about time the hon. member started recognizing the truth. 

                                    *  *  *
...

[Translation] 

          ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION SUMMIT 

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have been a
member of this
House for one year now, and I am proud of it. 

Whenever we put a question to the solicitor general, we always get one of
three answers: either it is before a committee, under investigation or
before the courts. 

My question is an easy one. Did the Prime Minister consult the solicitor
general before ordering the
spraying of students with pepper gas, or did he simply bypass him because he
knew those actions were illegal? 

  
  1500   

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would
seem to me that
members who are representative of the political party that established the
public complaints commission should understand its purpose. 

I think all of the questions being put are being put specifically around
this particular incident which is being investigated right now. It would be
completely inappropriate to discuss any of the details around that
investigation. 


...

Routine Proceedings ...

REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE 

                               APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as you have
indicated, I did write to
you pursuant to Standing Order 52(2) to tell you that I would be rising in
my place today to seek leave to propose an emergency debate concerning the
actions of the officials of the Prime Minister and of the Prime Minister
himself in relation to actions taken by the RCMP during the APEC summit in
Vancouver. 

Documents have been released to the RCMP public complaints commission
inquiry that lend credence to concerns that have previously been raised
about the direct intervention of the Prime Minister's office with the RCMP
concerning security arrangements at the summit. There is now documentary
evidence that officials with the PMO and perhaps the Prime Minister himself
requested that actions be taken against peaceful demonstrators exercising
their democratic rights. 

Any political interference in policing is highly improper, but when there is
documentary evidence that the Prime Minister intervened with the RCMP to
take actions against demonstrators so he could retain cordial relations with
Mr. Suharto, the former authoritarian leader of Indonesia, and that such
political interference resulted in the use of pepper spray and of physical
force to arrest peaceful demonstrators, we know there is a real possibility
that Canadian democracy has suffered a deep wound. 

Standing Order 52(5) states that in deciding upon an application for an
emergency debate, the Speaker shall consider “the probability of the matter
being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means”. 

The Prime Minister has clearly stated that he will make no statement in the
House of Commons
concerning the matter so there is no likelihood that the House of Commons
will have an opportunity to address this grave and urgent matter. An
emergency debate is therefore the only way for members of this House to
address threats that have possibly been made to two of the foundation stones
of democratic governance: freedom of expression and the political
independence of the police. 

An emergency debate in the House of Commons would in no way interfere with
the RCMP inquiry.
The public complaints commission has a specific mandate under the RCMP Act
to conduct
investigations. The House of Commons is a body with its own constitutional
duties and obligations to hold the government publicly accountable for its
actions. Surely it is appropriate that members of the House should have an
opportunity to perform those democratic duties during the week that Nelson
Mandela will address the House. 

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider favourably this request. It would give
an opportunity not just to us but to the Prime Minister to give an account
of himself and perhaps to refute convincingly the
allegations that have been made against him. Nevertheless, in the interest
of the public and of
democracy that kind of debate should occur and occur soon in this Chamber. 

The Speaker: I thank my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona. I received his
letter about an hour
and a half ago. I have had occasion to consider both the letter and what he
has said here in the House of Commons. 

In my view the hon. member's application does not meet the requirements of
Standing Order 52 at this time. Therefore I would rule that there will not
be a standing debate on this issue today. 

...

[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

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