[asia-apec 690] Cda Hansard re: APEC '97, Sept.22/98

[Sharon R.A. Scharfe]

Official excerpts/translations 
Hansard
Parliament of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
September 22, 1998

...
Statements
...

SOUTHEAST ASIA 

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I recently returned
from Indonesia and
Thailand on a mission led by the Canadian Council for International
Co-operation to see the impact of the Asian financial crisis on the people
who live there. 

The impact is catastrophic. Families are desperate, reeling from massive
unemployment and
skyrocketing food prices. And for many, the last threads of hope are rapidly
unwinding. 

Upon our return we called on the government to fundamentally change its role
in global economic
management. The World Bank and IMF's prescription is disastrous. These
institutions must be
completely overhauled to ensure that the forces of globalization create
equity and serve the needs of people. 

Instead of using pepper spray to stifle students protesting APEC in
Vancouver, instead of ignoring the cries of hunger from citizens around the
world who are paying the consequences of global capital gone berserk, this
government must end its complicity with the financial power brokers and
champion global reform to alleviate poverty and environmental degradation. 

...

Oral Question Period

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and it is a simple question that has been
asked by many Canadians. 

Why will the Prime Minister not simply apologize to the Canadian students
who were wrongfully pepper sprayed at the APEC summit conference? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry
that some people had a problem with the police there. No one wished for that
to happen and that is why there is an inquiry. 

Where there are situations like that, when people feel that they have not
been treated fairly, there is a process to help them. It allows them to see
whether the police acted in an unethical or illegal fashion. There is an
inquiry into this. 

At the end we will see who is responsible and who is not. That is why there
is an inquiry. If some people were not well treated, certainly— 

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition. 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is playing dumb on this question. Our complaint is not with the
RCMP but with the Prime Minister who gave them their orders. 

Our concerns cannot be resolved by the commission. They can only be resolved
by the Prime Minister himself coming clean on this issue. 

Will the Prime Minister explain to this House and to the students his role,
not the RCMP's role, in  this fiasco? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my role was
very simple. I was the host of 19 leaders who came to Canada. The RCMP was
responsible for keeping order so that the leaders visiting Canada could be
safe. This is done for every meeting of this nature. 

My role was to be chairman of the APEC meeting on behalf of Canada at that
time. The people of Vancouver received the leaders very well. 

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
very interesting because that is not what the RCMP say. They say they were
instructed to suppress peaceful  protesters even if they were not a security
risk. 

RCMP memos say things like “PM's specific wish” or “PM wants the protesters
out”. That PM was not me and it was not the Minister of Finance. Who was it? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know at
least one of the two will not become the PMr. 

I have been in politics for a long time. As a minister, I have seen many
people in departments speaking on behalf of their ministers or on behalf of
the prime minister, not knowing— 

Some hon. members: Oh, oh. 

The Speaker: Colleagues, I know we all want to hear the questions and the
answers. The hon. member for Edmonton North. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister
seems to have his fingerprints all over this. The “PM” he is talking about
is a post-mortem that Canadians want on this whole issue because they are
disgusted. 

Why is it that the Prime Minister resorts to blaming a bureaucrat? Why does
he not believe in  ministerial accountability, stand up in his place right
now and say “I'm responsible. I apologize and I will explain what I did in
this affair”? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an
inquiry that is being conducted in Vancouver on this incident, which
occurred during the last hours of the APEC meeting, when the 19 leaders came
to Canada and we were the hosts. The inquiry will look at all the facts. 

I said before, and I will repeat, that I hosted the meeting. Until the end
everything went very well. After it was over they informed me that there was
an incident at the last hour of the meeting. 

There is an inquiry into what happened there because— 

The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North. 

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand why
the Prime Minister was shocked there was an incident because he very clearly
pointed out that he did not want to be embarrassed and have other leaders be
embarrassed. 

This public commission looks into the activities of the RCMP, not the
unethical activities of politicians. 

When is the Prime Minister going to stand up in his place and admit he was
wrong, or is he above the law? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the
hon. member tends to exaggerate a bit. Just a bit. She is very consistent.
Today on the Hill she was applauding a group  of people who object to gun
control and yesterday she did not want us to have people with guns
registered in Canada coming from abroad. 

[Translation]   

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the further we
delve into “peppergate”, the more we realize that the real responsibility
for suppressing anti-Suharto demonstrators lies not with the RCMP but with
the Canadian government, which was consumed  with reassuring the dictator. 

Yesterday, we learned that the RCMP liaison officer was told to do
everything necessary to meet Suharto's demands. 

Will the Prime Minister admit that the testimony by officer Peter Montague
confirms that the  extreme intervention by the RCMP in Vancouver is directly
related to the directives his government issued to the RCMP? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said,
there is an investigation into this matter. A commission will conduct an
inquiry, giving members of the public with complaints against the RCMP an
opportunity to present their views, and the RCMP an opportunity to justify
its actions. The commission is to begin its work shortly. Let us leave it to
do its work. 

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the commission
of inquiry will investigate the actions of the RCMP, as the Prime Minister
points out. Our questions are directed  not at the RCMP, but at the Prime
Minister. 

Would the Prime Minister be so good as to tell us what lesson we are to
learn from seeing a supposed statesman deliberately crushing the individual
rights of his fellow citizens so that he can stay on good terms with a
dictator, because that is the fact of the matter? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Such rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. 

I would like to inform the hon. member that, as the Minister of Foreign
Affairs pointed out yesterday, we provided financial assistance to bring
protestors to the parallel summit in Vancouver. We ourselves provided
assistance for protestors to come from other countries to hold a parallel
summit in Vancouver.

For people who do not want to hear anything about civil liberties, I think
we have gone further than anyone in issuing an invitation to these people
and paying their expenses so that they could come and protest. 

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two days now the
Prime Minister has been hiding behind the RCMP public complaints commission
in order to avoid answering questions on the role he and his office played
in repressing Vancouver students during the visit of dictator Suharto. 

How can the Prime Minister hide behind this commission when the issue is
that he and his office dealt with the RCMP as if it were a political police
force? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be
an inquiry. Inquiry members will question those who come before them. As
everyone knows, two senior officials from my office have agreed to go and
testify. 

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the
same tape. The question is very simple: are we to understand that in future
the behaviour of the RCMP at demonstrations will be determined by foreign
visitors, including dictators? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the rules
proposed were for the protection of all leaders of all the governments
present, and they were all given the same reatment. 

[English] 

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

A federal government lawyer claims that the Prime Minister has no relevant
testimony to give before the Public Complaints Commission. 

Is the Prime Minister pretending that he never discussed the handling of
protesters or the accommodating of Suharto's sensitivities with any of his
officials? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was aware
that some of the delegations wanted reassurance. I did that for many. 

For example, the President of China was supposed to go to Victoria to
receive a doctorate. We  could not guarantee him that there would be no
demonstrations and he declined to go. We knew that people could protest. The
President of China did not accept the offer to receive a doctorate from the
University of Victoria because we could not guarantee there would be no
protesters. 

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not demanding
accountability for the Prime Minister's awareness, they are demanding
accountability for the Prime Minister's actions.

The solicitor general has already said that any witness requested to appear
before the Public Complaints Commission should do so, including presumably
the Prime Minister. 

Does the Prime Minister agree with the solicitor general? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just said
that at this moment there is an inquiry. It will look at all the facts.
Nobody has asked me to appear. 

Under the circumstances we looked at the precedence and it is not usual in
Canada for the Prime Minister to appear in front of a commission. It has
never happened before. We will see what happens, but there is no need now. 

I am not preoccupied. I want people to let the inquiry do its work. The
leader of the fourth party is inventing stories. The facts will be told to
the commission in a few weeks. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, with his
answer a few moments ago in the House to the Reform members, appears to
indicate that it is better to have the armed thugs of a dictator in Canada
than to leave lawful and legitimate long gun owners free from government
regulations and taxation. 

The truth is out there somewhere about who ordered the RCMP to stifle
legitimate protesters at the APEC summit. The solicitor general said
yesterday that the Prime Minister cannot avoid a subpoena to testify about
the real story. 

Will the Prime Minister simply explain to the House his role in the pepper
spray matter today? No one— 

The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister. 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to
confess one thing. After it was all over I was asked a question about the
pepper spray. I did not know what they were talking about. 

I asked the journalist what he meant. It is a product that I have never
used. I did not know that it existed. That is why I made the joke and I
probably should not have made it. I did not know that  here was a spray of
pepper. 

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, reality seems to be
imitating fiction when it comes to our American neighbours. They may already
have a case like the movie Sex, Lies and Videotapes. Soon we may be watching
a northern spinoff, Suharto, pepper spray and cover-up. 

Will the Prime Minister tell us why a subpoena may be necessary before he is
accountable to Canadians about the APEC affair? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it
is very important to make a distinction because a couple of questions have
actually represented what I said yesterday incorrectly. The reality is the
public complaints commission can call whomever it wants. That is its
prerogative. 

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

We know from documents on November 14 that the RCMP were unhappy with the
political role they were asked to play in the APEC affair. Like the Prime
Minister, we want the inquiry to work. 

Can the Prime Minister guarantee the House and Canadians that the inquiry
will be allowed to investigate the office of the Prime Minister and not just
look into the issue of the RCMP? Can it guarantee us that it will be able to
look into the political role that was played in the Prime Minister's office? 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
reality is the public complaints commission acts on the complaints of
citizens. It has a wide range of opportunities to investigate and it has a
good history for the last 12 years of doing Canada justice. These people
should let that committee do its work. 

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let it be very clear
that the solicitor general did not answer the question. 

The Prime Minister said the public complaints commission can look into those
who have grievances against the RCMP. The question posed by my colleague is
can it look into the affair from a political point of view into the Prime
Minister's office and his complicity. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously
the hon. member does not understand that it is not for me or the government
to direct it as to what to do. It has a job to do and it will do it. 

                                    *  *  *     
...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is now
clear that we have a triple E Prime Minister: evasive, elusive and erroneous. 

The Prime Minister clearly showed his contempt for Parliament yesterday by
hiding behind the solicitor general on APEC. 

The solicitor general clearly showed his lack of knowledge in his own
portfolio by confusing an RCMP complaints commission with a public forum. 

I ask the Prime Minister, not his human shield, the solicitor general, did
he or his office give the  RCMP instructions to remove the protesters from
the UBC campus and will he give an accounting in this House? 

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be
an inquiry into it. I saw protesters when I was there. I did not ask anybody
to withdraw them at all. 

A place was provided for protesters in Vancouver and on the campus. That was
the plan. There were to be protesters and there were. The problem that
occurred is being analysed by the commission at this time. It will report
and we will act accordingly. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure what part of this is not a criminal proceeding. The Prime Minister and
the solicitor general do not understand.

This is a question of political interference from the highest office in the
land and the Prime Minister is hiding behind this. Canadians deserve to know
what has happened in this affair. There should be a detailed explanation,
and I ask the Prime Minister again, or the solicitor general, will they
guarantee that they will broaden the mandate of the public inquiry to allow
for the question of political interference to be examined at that level. 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again
my critic from the Conservative Party fails to understand this process, that
the public complaints commission itself will make the decisions as to the
nature of this investigation. 

I have every confidence that it will do it in a way that will satisfy all
our interests if we let it do its job. 

                                    *  *  *

...

APEC SUMMIT 

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed to
rise today in this House as Progressive Conservative foreign affairs critic. 

I must say that human rights have been violated, not in Indonesia or
elsewhere, but right here, in Canada, at the APEC summit in Vancouver. 

In the name of freedom of expression for all Canadians, after the excuses he
made today and his statement that members of his staff will testify, will
the Prime Minister confirm to this House that he and all of his ministers
concerned will go and testify before the commission? Yes or no? 

[English] 

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only
once again repeat that the public complaints commission is mandated. It is
an instrument that was put forward through parliament by the former
government to deal with complaints against the RCMP. If members opposite
will give it a chance, it will do that in the fine fashion it has done it in
for the last 12 years. 

                                    *  *  *
...

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

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