Debates of Sept. 22nd, 1998

Apec Summit

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the rules proposed were for the protection of all leaders of all the governments present, and they were all given the same treatment.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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.

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

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.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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 there was a spray of pepper.

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

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?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

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

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?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

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

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.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

Social Union

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister responded to our questions concerning social union in a somewhat cavalier manner, irresponsibly even, going so far as to describe the government of Ontario as ultra-right. Really now! For the social union to work, there must be a minimum of openness and good faith.

Given the importance of the social union, the problems being experienced across Canada in the health field as a result of the federal cuts, and the consensus of the premiers, can the Prime Minister brush off a serious question of such import in such a cavalier manner?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The debate on the social union was an initiative by this Prime Minister, from this side of the House, with the premiers at the meeting of last December, almost a year ago. We wanted to consider social union.

I have, however, always said, and say again today, that the five principles of health insurance, as set out in the law adopted by the Parliament of Canada with a view to assuring all Canadians of a program, are not negotiable. The rest, however, is.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I understand from the Prime Minister's response is that Lucien Bouchard could have been blamed if a consensus had not been reached, which would have suited the Prime Minister, but now that there is a consensus, he no longer knows what to do. That is a problem.

How, and on what basis, can the Prime Minister say that the provincial premiers want to abolish the five principles in the Canada Health Act? On what authority does he make that statement? There is nothing to that effect in the agreement.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I was asked “Are you going to accept any changes to the five principles?” and I said no. Look at the transcripts and you will see this. Instead of talking through your hat, go and read the question and the answer, to see what they were.

Hepatitis C

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Health proud of the fact that all hepatitis C victims in Ontario and Quebec are going to be fairly compensated, while those in other provinces who contracted the virus before 1986 will receive nothing? Does that make him proud?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had at heart the real interests of those who contracted hepatitis C from the blood system he would support the proposal we have made. The proposal we have made is to ensure that persons who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system at any time will not have to pay out of their own pockets for medical services and drugs they need. That is what we propose. I call on the member to support us in that initiative.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this minister supposedly worked all summer on hepatitis C and what did he come up with? Some catchy new slogan, care instead of cash.

So what is the sick dad supposed to do, take his whole family into the hospital bed with him? This dad has no future, no car, no life insurance. What he wants is compassion instead of some catchy new slogan. When will he get compassion?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is so profoundly out of touch with Canadian values that it does not know the way Canadians show their compassion is by their health care system. The hon. member has no idea that the way Canadians show their concern about others is through health care.

It is for that reason that we are now urging the provinces to join with us to ensure that those who have become sick because of the blood system, no matter when, have access to drugs and treatment they need. At the moment they have to pay out of their pockets in most parts of the country for interferon and important medical services.

We are saying let us put that behind us and make sure people have the treatment they need.