Debates of Oct. 22nd, 1999

Peacekeeping

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been and remains one of the most dedicated supporters of peacekeeping. Of all the activities conducted by our nation, few reflect the attitudes, beliefs and spirit of Canadians like peacekeeping.

Today more than 4,000 Canadian forces personnel are far from their loved ones, unselfishly giving their best to missions in far away places such as the Golan Heights, Cypress, the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait, Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Our men and women are also contributing to other complex and sometimes dangerous peace support operations in East Timor, the Arabian gulf, Cambodia, Guatemala and Mozambique.

To commemorate United Nations Day and the 11th anniversary of the Nobel Peace Prize for peacekeeping, the Canadian forces will at 10 a.m. on Saturday, October 23, 1999 hold a ceremony at the peacekeeping monument in Ottawa to pay tribute to the men and women of the Canadian forces who have died while serving on peacekeeping missions around the globe.

I know that all members of the House will join me in honouring both the sacrifices and continuing exemplary commitment of the men and women of the Canadian forces.

Pay Equity

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to stop saying one thing when they mean another. Take the notion of pay equity. Canadians want anyone doing the same job to be paid the same. Same job, same pay, that is pay equity, except if you are a Liberal. To them the state should decide what your job is worth and which job should be paid the same as other jobs.

How does the state make this leap of logic? The Liberals cannot really say. But naturally they know better than workers, unions and employers what jobs are worth, and once that dollar figure has been pulled out of the Liberal hat, someone has to pay a lot of money, unless that someone is a Liberal. They fight for years not to have to pay the price of their own foolishness.

Equity means fairness and equal treatment. Only the Liberals could undermine this fine principle by using it to cloak arbitrary state intervention.

Canadians beware, fairness can become what the government says is fair not what citizens agree is fair in free negotiations. Is that the—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Dartmouth.

Ywca

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this week has been the fourth annual YWCA Week Without Violence, the campaign where all Canadians are challenged to build solutions to violence in their own communities.

As the member of parliament for Dartmouth, I know where much of the violence in my community comes from. It is from poverty, from hopelessness and from an sense of deep frustration of being left out of the good things which the country has to offer. It comes from running up against brick walls as people look for jobs, decent housing, pensions, as they stand in line at food banks. It comes from seeing government policies that do not address these issues but instead continue to maintain high levels of poverty, unemployment and economic barriers to higher education.

As we applaud the YWCA for its efforts to draw attention to violence, let us here in the House collectively address the roots of poverty with progress and with humane policies that put people first, children first and equity first.

Apec Inquiry

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed in the House that there was no proof that he was involved in the APEC security arrangements.

However, documents released by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission show that the Prime Minister and his office were up to their eyeballs in taking action against the APEC protesters. The Prime Minister told the House that he had nothing to do with it and yet we now find that he and his staff were intricately involved.

Why did the Prime Minister and his office tell police that they had to find some way to get those protesters out of there?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this matter is being considered by the Public Complaints Commission under the former Mr. Justice Hughes. This is an independent tribunal. I suggest we let the tribunal get on with its work in examining this matter.

I want to also point out that senior officials of the Prime Minister's office have already testified. I suggest that the hon. member look at what they have to say and take that into account as well.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as incredible as it sounds, in order to stop the protesters at the APEC meetings, the Prime Minister arranged to temporarily lease land from UBC so that he could charge any protesters for trespassing, arrest them and then throw them in jail. In other words, where it was perfectly legal and lawful to protest one day it suddenly became a place to charge, arrest and jail students the next day.

Are these legal shenanigans the Prime Minister's way of getting around the charter protected rights of these protesting students?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I reject categorically the premise of the hon. member's question. I do not accept it at all.

I will repeat that this matter is being considered by an arm's length tribunal headed by a very distinguished former judge. He will take all these documents into account. Let us wait until he states his conclusion. That is what we should do if we respect the work of the tribunal. That work should not be carried on in the House when the tribunal has been set up to do that work.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what an independent RCMP Public Complaints Commission found. It found that the chief of APEC security was quoted as saying “Even they, the prime minister's staff, say they are not concerned about the security aspect of the Prime Minister's visit; it's the politics of it”.

In other words, the Prime Minister and his office were prepared to move in on protesters, not because they did anything wrong, no, it was because the Prime Minister did not want it to look bad for the dictator Suharto.

Why did the Prime Minister pressure the RCMP to compromise the legal rights of the protesters in order to protect the dictator Suharto?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept, in fact I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. At the same time, I wonder why the hon. member does not respect the jurisdiction of the tribunal and wants to have its work duplicated improperly in the House.

A very distinguished former judge is looking into this matter. Contrary to what the hon. member has said, the tribunal has not reached any conclusions. We will be happy to see the conclusions and have them considered once they are reached and announced by the judge.

Why does the Reform Party not want to let the commission do its work and respect the work being done by former Mr. Justice Hughes?

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition rejects the premise of the Deputy Prime Minister's answers. He is trying to throw a wet blanket on APEC and that is not going to work. It is not going to go away.

The Prime Minister still denies he was directly involved. Let me read a quote from one of the police officers at that time. The police officer said “We know how we normally treat things, but then the Prime Minister is not directly involved. But right now the Prime Minister of our country is directly involved and he's going to start giving orders”.

What part of that quote does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand is why the Reform Party is unwilling to let an independent arm's length tribunal carry on its work and allow the commissioner, Mr. Hughes, to consider all the matters in question, including the evidence of senior officials of the Prime Minister's office, and then reach his conclusions and issue his report.

Why does the Reform Party not understand the process of justice in the country?

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

It would be nice, Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister answered questions instead of asking them all the time.

The Prime Minister on October 28, 1998 said “At that time I did not have time to discuss anything with police. Anybody with common sense would know that”. Not only was the Prime Minister burning up the phone lines, but now we learn he was busy leasing land in order to crack down on student protesters.

How can the Prime Minister continue to stubbornly deny he was directly involved in APEC operations when everybody with common sense knows he was?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I again reject the premise of the hon. member's question. There has not been a finding to that effect by Mr. Hughes. The commission has not completed its hearings. Mr. Hughes has not rendered his judgment.

If the hon. member asks why in addition to answering questions I ask them, I want to demonstrate that the Reform Party members on this or any other subject fail to have any real, meaningful or important answers. They do not have the answers and they do not have the facts.

Audiovisual Productions

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that the Montreal urban police were to meet yesterday with officials from Canadian Heritage and Revenue Canada.

Could the minister tell us the outcome of this meeting?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the allegations are being investigated by the police. So I ask that we let the police do their work.

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

Mr. Speaker, we never get an answer from this government, because everything is always under investigation.

If the Deputy Prime Minister cannot tell us about this meeting, it is, perhaps, because the rumours are true and the meeting was not held.

Could the government tell us why the meeting between the officials and the police was cancelled?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the meeting did not take place because the RCMP is carrying out investigation and has asked to continue its investigation itself.

For the ninth or 10th time, we invite the Bloc Quebecois members, we encourage them, to contact the RCMP directly if they have any allegations or information.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the media are reporting that Telefilm Canada is showing arrogance by refusing to answer the questions asked by journalists, preferring instead to refer them to the Access to Information Act.

My question is: How can the government tolerate the arrogance displayed by Telefilm Canada, which is refusing to answer questions about how it is spending public moneys?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Telefilm Canada is not refusing to answer questions.

Members opposite and in fact all the members of this House have had many opportunities to ask questions to Telefilm officials when they have appeared before house committees, and this will continue to be the case.

Telefilm Canada is complying with the Access to Information Act and if the hon. member is alluding to an RCMP investigation, again, we urge him to contact the RCMP directly if he wants to make allegations or communicate information.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to allow Telefilm Canada to regain its credibility, what it the Minister of Canadian Heritage waiting for to ask the auditor general to shed light on a case where the actions of a minority are detrimental to the whole television industry?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, one wonders which actions, by whom, are detrimental to whom in this House.

Again, and I believe I am repeating this for the 13th time, if Bloc Quebecois members have allegations to make or information to communicate, we urge them to contact the RCMP directly. It is investigating this matter at the minister's request.

Apec Inquiry

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, another autumn in the 1997 APEC fiasco haunts us still.

The transcript of an RCMP conference call reveals the Prime Minister's office was deeply involved in security arrangements for the Vancouver summit.

Listen to what RCMP Inspector Wayne May had to say at that time. He is quoted as saying, “When the Prime Minister is told of this he is just going to tell them to do whatever it takes to get the protesters out of there”.

I would like to ask the solicitor general, the minister responsible for the RCMP, to confirm what Canadians already know, that the Prime Minister and his office had a direct role in security for the APEC summit.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that the Public Complaints Commission is an independent tribunal. Mr. Hughes is examining all information relevant to the RCMP.

What my hon. colleague should do is let the Public Complaints Commission do its job.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the APEC inquiry is about investigations into the RCMP. What we are interested in talking about today is what the Prime Minister's involvement was in all of that.

RCMP Inspector Bill Ard is quoted as saying, “The Prime Minister wanted everybody removed. That was the deal and we are feeling there is no legal way to do that”.

In the face of these hard RCMP facts, why will the government not confirm the involvement, and indeed the interference of the Prime Minister and his office in the APEC summit in 1997?