Debates of Sept. 21st, 1998

Apec Summit

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

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?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, they do not know. When I was there I saw signs and banners in protest against me and against others.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

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.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

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?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

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?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

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?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

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?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

Budget Surpluses

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a statement to the House on February 19, the Prime Minister reminded us of the promise he made during the last election campaign to devote half of any budget surpluses to social programs.

Last week, we learned that, so far, all the surpluses have gone towards paying down the debt, and that nothing has been put towards social programs or reducing taxes.

After going back on his promise to scrap the GST, after going back on his promise to introduce pay equity, is the Prime Minister not embarrassed to break his promise to use half of the surplus to help the health sector?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on July 1 we introduced a new $850 million program to help poor families. In addition, last spring the Minister of Human Resources Development implemented a program to provide almost $1 billion in assistance over three years to fishers in Newfoundland, Quebec and elsewhere.

We have put a great deal of money into social programs and we have also paid down the debt, which means that we are a very balanced government that is doing everything it can to meet both its social and its financial responsibilities.