Debates of Oct. 20th, 1998

Supply

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate the issue surrounding APEC and the civilian oversight, and I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.

Having served for 10 years on the Waterloo Regional Police Service and as chairman, I know firsthand about the importance of our police and what they represent for all Canadians. The police in Canada are highly respected. There is no question that in order to maintain that level of respect we must have the ability to address concerns about police conduct, especially where we feel we have not been treated fairly.

Civilian oversight bodies such as the RCMP Public Complaints Commission do precisely that. Civilian oversight is a time honoured principle in democratic societies. It provides needed objectivity and credibility to investigate police conduct.

Police officers work in difficult circumstances. The task of ensuring Canadians remain safe in their homes and on their streets can be very complicated. It is a task we believe police carry out with dignity and with fairness.

There are times when police must use the force necessary to apprehend criminals or to prevent tragedy. Canadians expect police to do exactly that. There are times however when the use of force is drawn into question. The ability to question any perceived wrongdoing makes up a fundamental component of our criminal justice system and indeed of our human rights as a nation.

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is an independent agency which was established in 1986 to investigate complaints from the public about the conduct of RCMP members. At that time Canada was a forerunner in creating the agency which was hailed as a significant step forward in support of democratic rights as we know them. We have seen a range of review agencies emerge over the years from local police service boards to provincial complaint bodies. Civilian oversight mechanisms now exist in almost all jurisdictions in Canada. All of these organizations have provided the necessary checks and balances of independent civilian oversight and effective review. That is important to note.

I will take a moment to review the role of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The PCC is an independent body and not part of the RCMP. It is an administrative tribunal created by parliament in 1986 to protect the public with an efficient independent mechanism with all needed powers to consider complaints against the RCMP. The PCC acts in the public interest both to protect human rights and to protect RCMP officers from groundless accusations of improper conduct. The legislation establishing the commission provides for a chair, a vice-chair and up to 27 other members from across Canada. The PCC has been in existence for over 10 years. Over that time it has become known nationally and internationally for its fairness and integrity.

I also want to review the mandate of the RCMP PCC. It is not a decision making body. It makes recommendations to the commissioner of the RCMP concerning complaints from members of the public. It makes recommendations for improvements to RCMP practices to the commissioner and the solicitor general, the minister responsible for the RCMP.

Each year the RCMP receives about 2,600 complaints from the public, most of which are resolved satisfactorily without input from that commission. Each year the PCC receives approximately 1,000 complaints from the public regarding the RCMP.

While other countries may have different structures for civilian oversight, most are built upon fundamental principles of fairness, equality, equity and independence. I am firmly convinced that civilian oversight can only be successful in an atmosphere of mutual respect, co-operation and understanding of each other's views and roles. The public complaints commission has moved successfully in that direction since its inception.

The competing demands of our society make it even more necessary for police, our communities and government to continually look at how we can do things better. Policing the police is a phrase we often hear to describe the need for monitoring police services and conduct. There is no question that we need that monitoring in order to maintain the high level of confidence that Canadians rightfully have in their police. One way to help us do that in law enforcement is through civilian oversight. It is an effective mechanism to help make our law enforcement system even better.

At this time I want to review the specific mandate of the PCC panel that is looking into APEC. The chair of the PCC established a public interest hearing on February 20, 1998 to look into: events that took place during or in connection with demonstrations during the APEC conference in Vancouver between November 23 and November 27, 1997; whether the conduct of RCMP members involved in the events was appropriate to the circumstances; and whether the conduct of RCMP members involved in the events was consistent with respect to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I also briefly want to review the provisions of funding to complainants before the panel looking into APEC.

The public complaints commission was created by parliament to act in the public interest in relation to complaints by the public against the RCMP. I want to note that the PCC hearing process is fair to all participants and is not a trial. The government does not need to ensure counsel are provided for complainants. The PCC will ensure that there is no abuse of cross-examination of witnesses and that all relevant issues will be brought before the panel and will be examined thoroughly. It will also enable the panel to address thoroughly and fairly all aspects of the hearing. In order to do this the government has provided the PCC with an additional $650,000 and in response to its request, that money is now flowing.

It is important to note that it has the authority to investigate complaints independently. Witnesses can be called for example, and reports and other documents can be subpoenaed. Once the examination is complete, a report is provided to the solicitor general and to the complainant.

Policing is everybody's business, everybody in Canada. Without effective community relations, police work is hindered. Crimes may not be reported and witnesses may not come forward.

Canada is a country envied by many around the world, and the Canadian government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians.

It is very important that communities have confidence in their police forces. Police officers are accountable to the communities they serve and rightfully so. That is why it is essential that we respect the process of the review mechanisms currently in place. It is essential that there be an independent and an arm's length relationship between communities, police and governments.

I believe that we have that independence in the public complaints commission. I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that commission's process. We do so in order to get to the truth and to all the facts as we know them. That is what I believe Canadians want. I also believe it ultimately will serve us well in order to get to the truth.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the hon. member. I think the comments he makes about the police in this country are important.

I agree with him that the job of the police and the RCMP is difficult. They have to exercise great care in making difficult judgments. Clearly the RCMP are answerable to Canadians through things such as the public complaints commission. If Canadians do not have faith in the process of this commission because there is not a level playing field or even if that perception is there—and I think the evidence in this debate is that it is—even if the process exonerates the members of the RCMP, is it not then unfair to those members of the RCMP to have them come out of a public inquiry that already appears to be tainted?

Would it not go further to help the interests of those police members if the students were given independent legal counsel so that if the public complaints commission found that there was no wrongdoing, then that finding may well be beyond reproach? However, to leave it on an unlevel playing field as it currently is will surely prejudice any outcome, thereby harming the RCMP members themselves.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I happen to believe that we do have a fair process in place. I happen to believe that the truth will emerge through this process. It seems to me that over time we will see the facts come out.

When I was chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police many a time I had to bite my lip and swallow very hard as we initially saw the one side come forward. We had to patiently wait until we could get our side out and allow our facts to emerge.

Canadians will be able to decide and view very carefully all the facts as they see them. They will be able to judge and judge properly. The process is one that is intact. It is there for all Canadians and it is one that ultimately protects us in the best interests of this great country of ours.

I reject totally and outright the notion that somehow by funding these people we would have something more fair in place. The whole purpose of a public complaints commission is to allow ordinary people to come forward and tell their side of the story and to get their facts and information out and to be heard in an objective fashion. That seems to fall on deaf ears as far as the NDP opposition is concerned. It does not seem to understand that the public complaints commission is there for a very precise purpose. That precise purpose is to get at the truth. We will see precisely that happen.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has been questioned by the member opposite about whether or not there is a level playing field.

Would the member who has the floor now not agree that this public complaints commission, which was established by parliament and has been in place for 10 years, has had a very level playing field for the 10 years? Perhaps the member might wish to speculate on what, if at all, the non-level playing field has been for the last 10 years. Is there not an ombudsman role here with a very level playing field for complainants and has it not been functioning well for 10 years?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

Our public complaints commission is known internationally in terms of the kinds of work that it does. As the member points out, it provides a level playing field.

We are fortunate in this great country of ours to have these kinds of processes in place that benefit all of us and ultimately protect all of us in the best interests of truth and justice.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak on this issue.

I would like to refocus the debate on the motion at hand which says in part that the government provide separate funded legal representation for complainants at the inquiry.

Some members of the House and some of the complainants appearing before the PCC panel in Vancouver have complained and the media has demanded that legal fees for the complainants at the APEC hearing be paid. They say that it is unfair for the government to fund counsel for its own officials and for the RCMP members but to deny it to the complainants.

When addressing the issue of funding for complainants, it is important to remember why the PCC was created by parliament. It was created by parliament just so that these complaints can be dealt with in a fair and open process. It was created in 1986. The member for Burnaby—Douglas is quoted as saying that it takes us out of the dark ages. With that I agree.

Since its creation it has developed an international reputation for fairness. It is a proper dispute resolution process. It is observably impartial. It is not adversarial. I would argue that it is a far better forum to resolve a dispute of this kind than is this House. This is not the place to conduct a trial.

When the question of providing funding for complainants first came before the PCC panel, it noted that it could not read into its enabling legislation this responsibility. The PCC chose to seek guidance on the question of providing funding for complainants from the Federal Court of Canada.

In her decision of July 20, Madam Justice Reed noted:

It seems reasonably clear that the commission does not have such authority. This follows in large measure from the terms of subsection 45.45(13) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act—. That subsection provides for payment by the commission of certain expenses incurred by complainants in certain circumstances. The payment of legal fees to allow them to be represented by counsel before the commission is not among these.

The presence of authority to pay for some expenses with an absence of authority to pay for legal fees leads to the conclusion, by implication, the commission does not have the authority to pay for the latter. In addition, the authority to pay amounts from the public purse is usually not a power that exists unless expressly conferred.

It is clear, as the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has stated, that the Commission has no jurisdiction and no authority to fund the complainants. Madam Justice Reed suggested in her decision that a panel could choose to recommend that the government provide funding for the complainants' counsel. The panel did approach the government regarding the granting of funding and the solicitor general, after serious and careful consideration, turned down that request.

In his letter to the panel the solicitor general said that the government is of the view that the panel can address all the complaints before it in an open and thorough manner without need for the government to provide funding for legal counsel for the complainants.

The PCC is already vested with broad authority. It can, under the terms of the RCMP Act, do the following: Summons any person before the board and require the person to give oral or written evidence under oath and produce such documents and things under the person's control as the board deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration of the matter.

I remind members opposite that there are no limits on who can receive a summons. To summons any person includes any member of the government, including the solicitor general and the Prime Minister. There are no limits on the availability of witnesses to the commission.

In addition, it can administer oaths. It can receive and accept, on affidavit or otherwise, such evidence and other information as the board sees fit, whether or not such evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law. The rules of admissibility are waived. Therefore, this can be far beyond the limitations that are imposed upon a court by the rules of admissibility and materiality.

It also specifies that any person whose conduct or affairs are being investigated by a board of inquiry or who satisfies a board of inquiry that the person has a substantial and a direct interest in the matter before the board shall be afforded a full and ample opportunity, in person or by counsel or by representative, to present evidence and make representations as needed. I would respectfully suggest to members opposite that the media have questioned the role of the government and that that, in and of itself, is sufficient reason for the government to retain counsel.

Therefore, it is clear that the complainants have considerable leeway to make their own views known. In this they will be assisted by counsel of the panel who has explained publicly that, in accordance with the PCC mandate, all efforts are being made to ensure that relevant evidence is heard by the panel and that unrepresented participants at the hearing shall be comfortable with the process.

May I suggest to the member for Burnaby—Douglas that if he goes to the Sparks Street mall today and is assaulted, the accusation will be dealt with in a court of law. It will be processed through the court of law by a crown attorney. It will be subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be limits on the evidence that can be presented; limits on materiality and relevance. He will be vigorously cross-examined by a defence lawyer.

If, however, the same member has a complaint about the police in the same incident, he will be accorded a hearing before the commission. He will be afforded commission counsel, two additional counsel and three additional investigators. Evidence will be allowed that would never be allowed in a court of law and he will be able to state his complaint freely and fully.

It is ridiculous to suggest that a person who is a victim of an assault should receive independent counsel. It is equally ridiculous to submit that a complainant to a process such as this also have independent counsel.

The commission counsel will take all participants through the evidence. They will be asked in advance of and after their cross-examination if there is anything else they wish to bring to the attention of the panel. If so, the participants will then be given another opportunity to speak.

I would suggest that this honourable House is, in some respect, missing the point by focusing on this motion.

The first point is that there has been no comment on the tragedy befalling ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. There has also been no comment upon Canada's role and relationship with countries that routinely abuse human rights.

The opposition wants to talk about pepper spray, but the government wants to talk about its proper relationship in these deep and troubling circumstances.

I would suggest to hon. members that they reject this motion. This is not a motion that is appropriate. There will be a full and fair hearing. The rules of evidence are wide open and there will be a full and complete hearing of this matter.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I guess it is pretty much acknowledged, at least on this side of the House, that the government has a problem with a level playing field when it comes to a lot of issues.

We can compare APEC with a lot of issues where there is a lot of unfairness and where there is no level playing field. If we look at what is happening with students, when it comes to post-secondary education, there is no level playing field. There are students who can afford post-secondary education and there are students who cannot afford it.

There are women involved in the pay equity issue. I would be very concerned if anybody in here would disagree that there is certainly not a level playing field when it comes to the pay equity issue that both the Conservative government and the Liberal government have refused to settle.

Women are being attacked by employment insurance changes which are forcing them back into the kitchen with no income. They are being forced to stay at home, sometimes facing violence. They no longer have an income.

These are all decisions being taken by this Liberal government. One would almost think that we have a government that wants to silence Canadians.

We know that the students were picked up and thrown into jail, but nobody was charged. Why were the students were not charged? Why were they thrown into jail and treated like criminals when no charges were laid?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that particular question would be addressed by the commission itself.

I want to speak to the issue of the level playing field.

I cannot, under the circumstances, imagine a more structurally level playing field. First, a complainant is just that, a complainant. The complainant is not accused of anything. Their liberties are not at risk. A complainant has a complaint about a police officer or the police. They are then afforded an opportunity to bring forward that complaint to a panel. The panel is able to waive normal rules of evidence and listen to that complaint in full. Even after the complaint they will be asked if there is anything else that the complainant would like to speak about.

When they bring forward a complaint about police officers or a complaint about any other matter, they will be subject to an examination by government counsel and by RCMP counsel because the person is complaining about the behaviour and the careers of these particular individuals and they have every right to be very careful in their response to the complaint.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member on the government side about fair process and a level playing field. I am having a real hard time with that, considering that we are talking about students and big government. It certainly is not a level playing field. Big government, once again, qualified for legal aid and the students, who have enormous debts, did not.

The member said that he has difficulties because we are not talking about problems in other countries such as China. Is he suggesting to the House that we should speak of these other things and not speak of our home country, and our own students who were affected by this debacle?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will speak to that issue. What the students were concerned about were human rights abuses in Indonesia. On that issue all government members are on the same page with the students. There is terrible abuse of human rights and it is something about which all members should be legitimately concerned.

But what the debate has focused on is the trivia, the irrelevance of the issue. Talking about getting our priorities out of whack, this is a clear statement of priorities that are completely out of whack.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Laval East.

I rise in this House today to speak on a motion of utmost importance. It is a matter of equity, justice and freedom in the face of the arrogance and cynicism of a Liberal government that will stop at nothing to please a foreign dictator.

The motion before us today is simple. It asks that the government allocate sufficient, separate funding to the students repressed by police to ensure fair and equitable legal representation.

So far, in debating this motion, we have gone over every connection between the Prime Minister's Office and the pepper spray used to repress students peacefully demonstrating against the presence of Indonesian dictator Suharto at the APEC summit held in Vancouver, in November 1997.

Previous speakers also noted the Prime Minister's arrogance in pointing out every move made by his office to hide his real involvement in the repression of students campaigning for the right to speak.

That is why I will be speaking today about how crucial the vote on this motion, following this debate, will be. In point of fact, this vote will show how far the Prime Minister is prepared to go to crush any dissidence on the part of Liberal members who may have been in favour of ensuring fair and equitable representation for students subjected to repression.

I would tell the hon. members across the way, who have been deprived of their most basic right to free speech, just as the students were before them, that they should thank their lucky stars they have a civilized Prime Minister. There is one thing they can be sure of, that the leader will not use a baseball bat to make them toe the line.

Unfortunately, the Liberal members have every reason to be afraid of their leader today, if they heed their consciences and vote in favour of equity and freedom of expression. They need only look at what happened to their colleague from Vancouver Quadra, who was forced to keep quiet after commenting that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission could not cast full light on what had happened at the APEC summit.

If this is not enough to convince them there is no freedom of speech left within their party, they just need to recall what happened during the vote on financial compensation for all Hepatitis C victims. At that time the Liberal MPs, who had always come out in favour of full compensation, were forced to vote against their consciences.

If that is not enough, they can also hark back to when female Liberal MPs were forced to keep silent when this government broke its promise and refused to obey the Human Rights Tribunal's decision on wage equity. That time it was their turn to get the prime ministerial pepper treatment.

The Prime Minister does not draw the line at just restricting freedom of speech on the streets of Vancouver or within his own caucus; he also goes after journalists.

Last week, in fact, the PMO tried to intimidate all journalists by unjustly attacking the reputation of one of their number. His office wrote an unjustified, and unjustifiable, complaint against an eminent CBC reporter, wasting no time in making sure the complaint was widely known so anyone who had not yet got the message would understand the price to be paid for telling the truth about the Prime Minister.

This is further evidence that the Prime Minister is prepared to do anything to impose his view of things, even to the point of accusing a journalist of lacking objectivity, when the journalist in question won a Gemini award for the quality of his work on the dubious events surrounding the APEC summit.

From now on, no one can talk of isolated facts. Repeatedly, the Prime Minister has acted to threaten the freedom of expression of those who do not think as he does. He uses cayenne pepper if he wants the RCMP to repress young students, threats when he wants to muzzle the members of his party and official complaints when he wants to intimidate journalists.

There is no longer any doubt about the attitude of this old politician at the end of his career. This is why he is today denying the students who were victims of the RCMP repression access to fair legal defence against the police and his government, which have a battery of lawyers and communications experts who are being paid out of the public purse.

In addition to denying basic legal aid to the students, the Prime Minister keeps making jokes about the repression they faced. Yesterday, he was back at it and pointed out to them that they were lucky they were peppered with cayenne instead of being beaten with a baseball bat. He even tried to calm the students by saying that the RCMP carried towels to wipe away the effects of the cayenne pepper.

However, intimidation, threats and arrogance are unacceptable, and it will not take the Prime Minister long to discover that. A big organization like the CBC was able to dismiss the Prime Minister's threats by standing behind the integrity and objectivity of its journalists.

The Prime Minister has learned it is difficult to destroy the credibility of a person with the means to defend himself. This is why he will do all in his power to deny the students the public funds that will give them fair representation before the battery of lawyers defending him and the police at our expense.

All of the opposition members are prepared to provide this financial help to the students so this entire matter may come to light.

I solemnly appeal to the members of the Liberal Party today to liberate themselves once and for all from the attitude of their leader and to vote according to their conscience. I appeal especially to the Liberal members from British Columbia, who already gave their support for funding to the students, but who may well remain silent today in the face of the thinly veiled threats of the Prime Minister.

These members should rise and vote in favour of the most elementary justice. It is time they set the example for all who still believe in freedom of expression and for their Prime Minister, who has yet to understand that this freedom underlies our democratic system.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my Bloc Quebecois colleague for his speech. I think he gave a very good description of what is going on in this country.

As I mentioned earlier, he drew a very apt comparison with the pay equity situation, which shows once again that this government is refusing to recognize the human rights tribunal. What is more, in 1992 the Prime Minister promised Mrs. Wry in writing before she died that he would honour the decisions of the human rights tribunal. Then he went back on his word.

This is a frequent occurrence. The incident with the students in Vancouver is not the only example. We have seen it happen throughout the country.

The Liberal government seems to want to muzzle Canadians. Would my colleague agree with me that the Prime Minister perhaps had his reasons for wanting to keep Mr. Suharto happy?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for her comments and her question. This gives me an opportunity to elaborate on the requests made yesterday by the Canadian Federation of Students.

The government opposite talks a lot. It has a hard time answering our questions. Had it paid more attention to the Canadian Federation of Students, it would have understood what is really at stake here.

Yesterday, Canadian students made three requests to the Prime Minister. It is important to mention them again. First, they are asking that adequate funding be provided to pay for lawyers' fees. I think this is a matter of fairness.

Given that the government opposite has a whole team of lawyers before the complaints commission, it would only be fair to provide the necessary funding to the students, so that they can be adequately represented.

The students' second request is that the Prime Minister make a public apology. Again, this is a matter of fairness.

[An hon. member]

A real apology.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

A real apology, as the hon. member says.

The Prime Minister must realize that some irresponsible action was taken. There is an issue of human rights that must be defended in this parliament, and the Prime Minister should apologize to the public and to this House.

The third request is that a public commission of inquiry be appointed to review the whole issue. How can one possibly think that the RCMP complaints commission is the best court to examine this political issue? It does not make sense. The commissioners are being put in an untenable situation. They are not comfortable with this issue and we can understand why.

The young members of the Canadian Federation of Students are asking for a public inquiry, so that light can be shed on this issue. The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois are asking this government to take its responsibilities.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was delighted to hear what my colleague from Rosemont had to say. He painted an excellent picture of the political situation we have under the government of the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice.

When things do not go to the minister's liking, he issues directives himself, and when the RCMP officers do not see what they should see, what he sees, mainly from behind his big dark glasses, he attacks the protesters directly. I remember what happened on the other side of the river when Bill Clennett, a man before his time, was protesting against the new employment insurance rules. Now we have the figures. Yesterday a survey indicated that only 42% of those paying into EI can draw benefits.

I am asking my colleague whether he has merely neglected to mention Bill Clennett, who ended up with a couple of broken teeth.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer will not deal specifically with that case, but the Liberal Party currently has a modus operandi whereby it is through threats and arrogance that both the members opposite and the general public are forced to react. We will be having a vote on this today. Some hon. members have had the courage to take a stand. I would ask them to be consistent with that stand and to vote along with the opposition on this.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, last year in Vancouver, several hundred people wanted to protest peacefully the presence of the Indonesian dictator, Suharto, at the APEC summit.

During the protests, the RCMP intervened and destroyed signs bearing pro-democracy slogans. Nearly 50 people were arrested. Some of them were released after promising to give up their democratic right to protest. We subsequently learned that the PMO had apparently promised Suharto he would not be bothered by protesters during his visit to Canada.

Pressured from all sides to examine these events, the Prime Minister could have enlightened us on the role his office played in the grave violations of the freedom of expression. Under the principle of responsible government, the Prime Minister must account to Parliament for his actions. However, instead of acceding to the requests of the opposition, he decided to sacrifice one of his ministers on the altar of cynicism and arrogance. But both of them are saying nothing. They have told us to await the results of the investigation by the RCMP public complaints commission.

The Prime Minister could have said from the outset that he was prepared to testify before the commission, but he decided to remain silent, even though he is ultimately responsible for orders his office apparently gave to the RCMP.

The silence of the Prime Minister and his Solicitor General will cost taxpayers close to $1 million, the amount the RCMP complaints commission expects to spend before this inquiry is over. And what will there be to show for it? Because the government is refusing to come up with the few thousands of dollars the student victims of these events need to pay their lawyers, they will not be able to present their case properly.

The Prime Minister even tried to cast these victims of the RCMP in the role of aggressors. Yesterday, here in the House, while briefly taking the heat off the Solicitor General, he once again denied the unfortunate students the most basic tool of justice, the right to legal representation.

In his defence, he said:

The police and the government being challenged have a lawyer to defend them. But there is no complaint against the students. They are the ones complaining and they can make their case—

They are the ones complaining against the police. Of course the police want to defend themselves because they are the ones being accused.

Finally, he said:

The RCMP is being attacked Some people in my office have been asked to testify because members of parliament claimed that they are responsible.

Who is doing the attacking, and who is being attacked? These young students were merely implementing a few sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, passed when the Prime Minister was justice minister. But, to add insult to injury, the Prime Minister of Canada even went so far as to defend the RCMP's actions as civilized. I quote him again:

Instead of using baseball bats or other weapons, the police are now trying to use more civilized methods and that is why they also had towels to help out.

That is the ultimate insult. The Prime Minister's attitude is unworthy of a government leader. Must he stoop so low and depict protesting students as violent? Is he so panicked that his judgment is slipping?

Why raise such spectres? Is it because we are getting close to Halloween, or because this government has some skeletons in its closet?

Canada will soon become a member of the UN security council, and this is certainly to the credit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, at the rate things are going, one wonders if, before long, Canada will still deserve its enviable reputation on the human rights.

This is a timely opportunity to ask ourselves how Canada will exert its influence on world powers. During the two years that it will be a non permanent member of the security council, will Canada deploy as much efforts for official development assistance, defence industry conversion and human rights protection, as it does for debt reduction, light weapon exports and trade expansion?

These are important questions which we must put to this government. The Prime Minister's behaviour since the APEC summit is unworthy of his position. While he is boasting about studies that put Canada among the world's best countries, he acts like a mercenary at the service of dictatorships.

Since human rights are still being trampled in Malaysia, does the Canadian government intend to take the initiative and ask that the next APEC summit take place elsewhere than in Kuala Lumpur?

Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the government's position is to praise human rights activists, as it did during President Mandela's visit, or to attack ordinary citizens participating in a peaceful demonstration against dictatorship?

Until it has been ascertained what course will be taken in terms of foreign policy during its tenure at the security council, I would appreciate it if the Government of Canada were to put its money where its mouth is and shed light on the allegations of repression made against the government and the RCMP.

In this respect, is the Prime Minister prepared to tell us whether or not the RCMP was acting on his orders when it trampled the democratic rights of demonstrators? Does the Prime Minister intend to apologize to all these citizens who were either arrested or pepper-sprayed, particularly those who, a few weeks ago, were awarded the Carole Geller award in recognition of their contribution to human rights advocacy?

Yesterday, in highly hypothetical terms, the Prime Minister offered the merest suggestion of regrets in response to the question of a member who noted the case of a person who was hurt by the police's action. He said:

I said that if this lady has suffered something because of this abuse by the police it will be judged by the commission. I apologized to her on behalf of the police.

This sure sounds like an admission on his part. The Prime Minister shot himself in the foot. If the RCMP public complaints commission finds the RCMP guilty of improper conduct during these events, the Prime Minister will have to take the blame.

To conclude, if the Prime Minister does not answer very soon all the questions put to him in connection with this matter, people will say that Canada's reputation as an advocate for human rights and fundamental freedoms is overrated. You will understand that, for these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois supports the NDP motion urging the government to provide funded legal representation for complainants in the inquiry and has proposed an amendment to ensure that sufficient funding is provided so that the legal representation is fair and equitable. This is a matter of fundamental justice.

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I liked the reference made by the member opposite to Hallowe'en. It is the members opposite who are wearing the mask on this entire issue. None of the members opposite has touched on any issue that relates to payment to whom, how much and for how long. That is where they wear the mask. None of them wishes to be associated with open ended funding on this matter nor would they wish to be associated with funding with restrictions and conditions. That also brings its problems. So it is they who wear the mask.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the question of the member opposite by referring to the questions he has not asked. He simply mentioned that I had not discussed the whole matter of the payments and the duration of the payments and that no one wanted to be associated under these conditions.

I would like to know from the hon. member whom he was talking about, what payment he meant, how long a payment was he talking about. When he said no one wanted to be associated under these conditions, he did not even indicate the conditions. So, I find it very hard to answer a question that has not been asked.

I think the member wanted to draw attention to the facts, without providing any specifics.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like the opinion of my colleague, the member for Laval East, on the demonstration at the APEC summit in B.C.

The orders came directly from the Prime Minister's office, and, in all likelihood, the place had to be cleared by 4 p.m. The RCMP officers had cylinders of pepper spray, and they had a good supply, since, on the news, we could see they were not small 10 ounce cylinders but 48 ounce ones.

Since, as the Prime Minister so aptly put it, the RCMP had a cylinder of pepper spray in one hand and damp towels in the other to wipe the demonstrators' eyes, I would like to know from my colleague from Laval East whether in her opinion the actions were premeditated. To use colourful language, it is like cutting off somebody's leg and then rushing them to the hospital to try to stick it back on or do the necessary stitching.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question. In my opinion, there is one thing on which we must agree right at the start. According to the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party, the students' right to express themselves freely and peacefully was violated at the time of the APEC summit. Refusing them financial assistance would therefore be tantamount to denying that right a second time, by preventing them from having proper representation at the commission hearings. These are fundamental principles.

To do otherwise would be to accept that the dice are loaded against the penniless students who are up against a whole army of lawyers on the public payroll. Finally, the third matter of principle is that this is not a run-of-the-mill case. It sets an important precedent. It raises vital questions, particularly on a government's political involvement in the justice system and on the violation of the fundamental rights of individuals.

These are the three fundamental principles that must be kept in mind when the entire matter relating to the APEC summit events is being addressed. In a more direct response to my colleague, I believe that we have proof, from all the documents we have been able to obtain and all the statements that have been made, including those from the dean of UBC, that the entire affair had been a long time in the planning.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to enter the debate on this motion.

Canada has always respected the basic fundamentals of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I do not think there is any other country in the world that is more widely regarded as Canada in promoting these values not only within our country but throughout the world.

On behalf of this side of the House, we continue to cherish those basic fundamental freedoms and continue to ensure that they exist within our country.

It is an unusual debate today. I am sure those people with us today will wonder why with the problems of the nation, finance, poverty and other things, we have been able to spend so much time on one conference which occurred in Vancouver almost a year ago. When all the smoke has cleared, what is the damage that has been done? The damage appears to be no broken bones, nobody in the hospital, nobody incarcerated. The damage seems to be some hurt feelings.

What is the process? The process is the public complaints commission which was set up by a previous government basically to review the action of a police force. That, as I understand the complaints procedure, is just that. A person can be a complainant and appear before the commissioner. The commissioner has significant resources to carry out his duties of examining the complainant's claims. There has never been any provision to provide legal fees for complainants.

What we are talking about today is creating a precedent we will have to live with. The next time someone has a demonstration and they feel they were not properly taken care of or perhaps were insulted or someone stepped on their foot or something, they will be able not only to go before a complaints commission but to have access to legal advice and legal representation.

The way members are talking in this House, one would think we were all there. Everyone seems to have a definition of exactly what happened. I was not there and I am willing to say that is why we have a complaints commission examining what happened. Why do we not allow the commission to do its job, which it is well paid to do? I note that the government has provided additional funding over and above its regular funding of $650,000.

In other words, we already have this incident in Vancouver costing up to a million dollars to the taxpayers and the opposition now is asking for more money that essentially will delay and continue this process for no one knows how long, an open ended situation. Just give us more money. The more money we get, the more complainants we will get. How long does it go on? What precedents are we setting for other similar incidents?

[The Speaker]

My colleague, you still have at least six minutes left and I know you will take advantage of that in continuing your representations after question period.

It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Canadian Mission In Chiapas

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 4, at the invitation of the electoral council of the State of Chiapas, I led a Canadian mission to Mexico to observe the election there. Voters went to the polls to choose representatives for the 40 seats of the local assembly and mayors for 111 municipalities.

The joint Senate and House of Commons delegation was accompanied by a delegation from the Assembly of First Nations. To our delight, the election was a calm event with no bloodshed.

We are happy to note that government officials and citizens in the State of Chiapas are headed in the right direction, that is to say towards a stable and resounding democracy.

This mission shows once again the spirit of co-operation and assistance underlying our relations with our neighbours in Mexico. We wish the best of luck to our Mexican colleagues and thank them for their warm welcome.