Debates of Sept. 25th, 1998

The Senate

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a recent poll conducted in my home province of Alberta has confirmed what my party has always known. The vast majority of Albertans want Senate reform and want it now.

Over 80% of Albertans want a direct voice in who represents them in Canada's upper house.

The poll also states that support for an elected Senate is strong, deep and entrenched.

How does the Prime Minister respond to this plea for an elected Senate? He goes ahead, fills an Alberta Senate vacancy with a federal Tory, instead of allowing the people to say who will represent them. This is Liberal democracy in action. It is this arrogance which helps explain why Alberta's federal Liberal caucus holds their meetings in a phone booth.

The Prime Minister cannot stop the people's will. It is only a matter of time.

Apec Summit

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1986, while the government was in opposition and the Conservative Party brought in legislation for the Public Complaints Commission, the current heritage minister said “I urge the government to make changes to allow the Public Complaints Commission to investigate beyond the RCMP”.

The Acting Prime Minister knows that the Public Complaints Commission cannot investigate the role of the PMO. Can the minister tell the House if he will make changes so we can guarantee that the PMO, if it is to be investigated, can be investigated by the Public Complaints Commission?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Public Complaints Commission has been in existence for some 12 years. It has built up a very fine record of outstanding work looking into complaints that are brought before it. I do not see any reason why one should assume that the Public Complaints Commission will not do everything necessary to thoroughly investigate the matters that are brought before it at the request of the student protesters.

The student protesters want to see the Public Complaints Commission look into this matter. Why does the hon. member try to undermine the work of the commission before it even begins?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice for the Acting Prime Minister to say we are trying to undermine the Public Complaints Commission. In 1989 when the Public Complaints Commission wanted to investigate Norman Inkster's role in a budget leak, it was this government that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to keep the Public Complaints Commission from doing its job.

How can the Canadian public be assured that this government will allow the Public Complaints Commission to investigate the role of the PMO in the APEC affair?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the value of the hon. member's question is shown by his assertion that this government was in office in 1989. It was not. We would have liked to have been, but we were not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the acting Prime Minister this question. In 1989 there was an attempt to interfere on the part of the government of the day and shut down the ability of the Public Complaints Commission to do its job. As a matter of fact, their position was that Mr. Inkster was no longer an employee of the RCMP, which is the assertion that I was making yesterday. This board can only look into the affairs of people who are employees or agents of the RCMP.

Will the minister give us the assurance today that the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office will—

[The Speaker]

The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the government of the day. It was not this government. I do not think that one should attempt to hold us in any way responsible for the position taken at that time by another government.

I also want to say that we want to see the commission do its work in an active and thorough manner. That is what the chair of the commission said when she announced the inquiry.

Let us see the commission start its work and get on with its work. If after its report is out—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

Canada Pension Plan

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is another non-answer day in the House of Commons.

It is now clear that the real reason the chief actuary for the Canada Pension Plan was fired was because Bernard Dussault would not compromise his independence. Finance officials told the chief actuary that he should not answer information requests from the official opposition or the government of Ontario because of their politically sensitive nature.

Why were the finance officials trying to compromise the chief actuary's independence? Is that not the reason he was fired?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not interfere in the internal relationships of public service bodies. We did not and we would not.

What is the member really asking us in terms of reporting relationships? Does he really think that the reporting relationships within OSFI should not be determined by the management in our professional public service? Is this is what he is saying? Should it be somebody else who—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we ask the questions here.

This position is supposed to be politically independent. The official opposition and the Government of Ontario asked some questions. The finance officials indicated that the questions should not be answered through the chief actuary. Is that not really the real reason why this individual was fired? Own up.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is very simple. I refer to the press release of the superintendent of financial institutions: “This has been an entirely internal personnel matter at OSFI, and the decision to terminate Mr. Dussault was taken within OSFI. Any suggestion to the contrary has no foundation in fact”. That is the fact.

Apec Summit

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the “peppergate” affair, the government repeatedly told us all week that the RCMP public complaints commission will have all the answers to the questions we have been asking since the beginning of this affair.

If this is the case, how can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the remarks made by his colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who stated that the public complaints commission would not disclose all that took place at the APEC summit?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will check to make sure the hon. member was not misquoted, but as far as we are concerned, the commission is in a position to conduct an in-depth investigation into these incidents, and we expect the hearings to start as soon as possible.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said is that the mandate of the RCMP commission would be limited to determining whether RCMP actions were in accordance with the law and whether the nature of these actions was appropriate.

So, will the government give us every assurance that this commission will be able to get to the bottom of the events in Vancouver, including the Prime Minister's involvement?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is purely speculative and hypothetical, since the Prime Minister has not been asked to appear before the commission. We already know, however, that two senior officials in the Prime Minister's office are prepared to testify: senior secretary Jean Pelletier and former director of operations Jean Carle. This goes to show how open we plan to be with the commission.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in December 1997, the auditor general wrote the following about the RCMP commission, and I quote “The Commission needs to significantly improve the way it carries out public hearings, both by prescribing clear and precise terms of reference for each hearing and by providing its members with training in conducting hearings”.

With the commission unable to clarify its terms of reference and to properly hold hearings, how can the minister say to us that he can give us all the details of the sombre events in Vancouver?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when the public hearings were announced, the chair of the commission, Ms. Heafey, said, and I quote “The commission has received 42 complaints concerning the incidents that occurred on the campus of UBC. I think a public hearing is the best way to guarantee the public that these complaints will be thoroughly, fairly and impartially examined”.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let's get serious. Even the present government in opposition had doubts about the credibility of the RCMP complaints commission.

In 1986, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is sitting opposite, said that the government of the time appreciated the work of the commission because it would help it get out of trouble.

Are we to understand that the government is hiding behind this commission because it has been in trouble for a week now?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, since 1986, the commission has had a record of fine work—for some 12 years. Furthermore, the work of this commission, created by Parliament, is non partisan and at arm's length from the government. The chair has assured the public that the commission is prepared to do this sort of work, and we should wait for the hearings.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps dodging questions about his direct involvement and that of his staff in suppressing peaceful protests at APEC.

The correspondence between UBC and the PMO clearly documents the extent of his involvement.

When will the Prime Minister come clean about his role in the disgraceful Spray-PEC suppression of civil rights?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when will the leader of the NDP withdraw and apologize for the statement she made in the House yesterday, which was totally incorrect, that Jean Carle had declared that he had destroyed documents? That is not correct.

Instead of asking her question the first thing she should have done was got to her feet and apologized if she had any respect for the traditions of this House.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear they do not want to hear the facts.

When the UBC president wrote to the Prime Minister complaining about PMO decisions to unreasonably restrict protesters, she got a letter from Jean Carle, a PMO staffer, and a phone call from the PMO's closest adviser, none other than Eddie Goldenberg.

When is the Prime Minister going to stop denying his role in this APEC fiasco?