Debates of Oct. 25th, 1999

Apec Inquiry

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly denied any personal responsibility in the security arrangements for the APEC conference. “I was not personally involved” was his story both inside the House and outside.

Now in documents obtained by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Superintendent Wayne May is quoted as saying, “Right now the Prime Minister of our country is directly involved”.

I would simply like to get a straight answer from the government. Whose story is true? The Prime Minister's story or the one that is now coming out of the APEC inquiry?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave his position earlier today in the scrum just outside the House. I want to add that the commission is being carried out by a very distinguished former judge. It is up to him to run the inquiry, look at all the evidence in context and reach his conclusion.

The hon. member, if he is serious about the work of the commission, will let the commission do its work.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have answered a thousand times before to let the commission do its work. The commission has done its work and it has produced a story which is a complete contradiction of what the Prime Minister has said and what he has said in this House.

If the Prime Minister is so determined to stick to his claims of innocence, will he repeat his story under oath in front of the APEC inquiry in Vancouver?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of our hon. friend's question is not valid. The commission has not ruled on these documents. They have simply been entered into the record before the commission. It is up to the commissioner to weigh them along with everything else before the commission.

Furthermore, and I will end on this point, it will be up to the commissioner, Mr. Justice Hughes, to decide how to manage the hearings of the commission. It is not up to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the security arrangements at the APEC conference were prejudiced by the Prime Minister's concern that Canadian students might embarrass some foreign dictator. He was prepared to suspend the democratic rights of those students rather than embarrass a foreign despot. His response when things turned ugly was a few pepper jokes and deny, deny, deny any responsibility.

I will ask again. How does the Prime Minister explain the discrepancy between his story and the story that is coming out of the APEC inquiry, if in fact he is telling the truth?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh.

[The Speaker]

Order. Colleagues, we are coming very close now so please, let us back off just a bit.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think members of this House and Canadians will reject the sleazy innuendo in the hon. member's question. Furthermore, if the hon. member wants to be taken seriously, then his question should be based on truth rather than what he is trying to get across wrongly in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it turns out that the Prime Minister is not the only one being hung out to dry now that we know some of the facts. His former operations director, Jean Carle, gave evidence that contradicts the facts that are now in the public domain. It is not just the fact that the Prime Minister squashed Canadians' rights, it is the cover up.

When Jean Carle gave evidence repeating the Prime Minister's claim of innocence, was Jean Carle not telling the truth or was he just covering up for the Prime Minister?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated his position inside and outside the House. Mr. Carle has testified as a former member of the Prime Minister's staff, as have existing members. All this is before the commission. What the hon. member says are facts adverse to the position of the Prime Minister have not been found as such by the commissioner. Let the commissioner do his work.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He has repeatedly stated that he was not involved in the APEC affair, that he was not involved with the RCMP, yet the transcripts of Superintendent Wayne May state the contrary. Is it the government's position that Wayne May is a liar?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, all I know about the transcripts is what I read in a newspaper. I invite the hon. member to look at the excerpts from the transcripts very carefully. I do not think they support the unwarranted innuendo and insinuation in his question.

Greenhouse Gases

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Kyoto, in 1997, a number of countries, including Canada, made a commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.

We learn now that Canada, far from being a leader in this area, is adding to the problem and is at the bottom of the list of countries with a 13% increase in these emissions.

Beyond its fine speeches on the quality of life, is the government intending to take specific measures to achieve the 6% reduction objective and how does is it intend to do so?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, yes, currently, members of the private sector and of various governments are looking together at ways Canada could act in order to achieve the level of 6% below that of 1990.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to congratulate the minister, but we have been hearing this speech for a long time. There has been no 6% reduction; there has been a 13% increase. So we are 19% behind the objective sought. This is a miserable performance.

What specific measures will he propose at the upcoming Bonn conference?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, growth in the Canadian economy has increased the level of CO2. It is true we have had considerable economic growth, but at the same time, we are now working with the private sector to define and establish the best ways to achieve the 6% reduction below the 1990 level.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's lax attitude toward greenhouse gases and its inability to make a commitment in the areas under its responsibility are yielding disastrous results.

Will the government admit that its negative performance in connection with greenhouse gases, the significant increase in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, is directly linked to the government's spinelessness, to its lack of planning of any concrete measures to reduce industrial emissions in Canada?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

No, Mr. Speaker, the plan we established several years ago is in place. We will continue with what we have decided to do.

I should add that the period during which the Kyoto objectives would be in effect would be from 2008 to 2012. There are a number of years left until then.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the government not understand that, because it caved in to Alberta quite simply to get some votes, Canada is in the process of gaining the worst reputation on the planet for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the problem to which the hon. member refers is that of a rapidly expanding Canadian economy. On this side of the House we take pride in the fact that our economy has performed very well. There has been a great increase in the number of jobs in all provinces, including Quebec.

On the other hand we do have to achieve those Kyoto targets. We fully intend to. That is why we are working together with the private sector and the provinces to make sure we do put ourselves on the path to achieve the Kyoto targets of minus 6% of 1990 levels in the years 2008 to 2012.

Apec Inquiry

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, at the APEC inquiry today, Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart takes the stand. The question is will Hughie also take the fall?

The Prime Minister has not agreed to testify, but let me put the question that he would be required to answer if he did. Did the Prime Minister ever discuss with any RCMP official the subject of the APEC protesters? If not, how is it that so many police officers seem to think he did?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already dealt with that question as recently as this morning outside the House. Also, Sergeant Stewart has not testified as yet, at least I have not received any reports of his testimony.

I do not know why the hon. member and other opposition members want to have a parallel system of inquiry in the House. Are they trying to undermine the APEC inquiry? Why do they want to do that?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know who the real Sergeant Pepper is. The reason that they know is that RCMP transcripts show the Prime Minister's hands all over the grinder.

Since the Prime Minister refuses to answer to this House, will the real Sergeant Pepper come forward and volunteer to testify at the APEC inquiry?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, there is an inquiry under way headed by a distinguished former judge. He is listening to evidence. He is studying documents. I do not know why the hon. member wants to try to undermine his work. Let the commissioner do his work. Why not support the commissioner?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, recent inquiry evidence has left Canadians wondering who is telling the truth about security at APEC. Transcripts from Superintendent Wayne May clearly indicate that police removed student demonstrators on the Prime Minister's orders. May states that there were no security risks but political pressures were real. Conversely, the Prime Minister maintains that allegations of his involvement are based on no facts at all. The facts are real.

How can the Prime Minister continue his intransigent denials over the evidence of three senior RCMP officers who claim the interference came from the PMO?