Lost his last election, in 2006, with 38% of the vote.
Apec Inquiry October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is the minister most implicated in the Peppergate affair.
He is the one responsible for the RCMP. He is also the one who decided that the young student victims of police brutality could not have lawyers.
Is it not a serious lapse of ethics for the minister most implicated in Peppergate to be the one denying legal representation to the victims, who have filed a complaint against the RCMP?
Supply October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member opposite said that these students are very bright. They are indeed. But they are facing a half-dozen paid lawyers who have had years of training, not only through the law faculty, but through the bar and years of legal practice, to give a different spin to what students say and to cross-examine them. I say to members opposite that no one, whether that person is bright or not, stands any chance of making his or her point against a team of well-trained and well-paid lawyers supported by the government machine.
As someone who has represented clients in court, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I can tell the hon. member that a lawyer's role is to make a point, it is to be able to cross-examine someone and make that person say what he or she did not mean to say.
These capable and bright students do not stand a chance against a team of well-trained and well-paid lawyers, and that is unfortunate.
Supply October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks.
I realize that what we are talking about here today in discussing brutal repression and its political consequences is indeed the role Canada might play. Canada may blaze the trail, and Canadians can play this role because they are a free and democratic society.
Unfortunately, as my colleague said, by some form of osmosis, instead of western, liberal values—in the philosophical and not the political sense—being propagated around the world at such meetings, instead of being propagated from Canada to somewhat less democratic countries, the virus traveled the other way around. Human rights standards were indeed harmonized: everyone has been brought down to the same level.
I totally agree with my colleague, and this is at the core of this issue, a core issue. In a society such as ours, if peaceful, idealistic students out to change the world are not allowed to speak out loud and clear, then, on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc as well indeed as the four opposition parties, I must say this is not the government we want; we want one that respects the rights and freedoms of all, and of young people in particular. We must not forget that they are the future of our society.
Supply October 20th, 1998
I rise with some sorrow today to speak on the motion by my NDP colleague. In my opinion, this is a waste of the House's time, because it should be taken for granted that the federal government will assume the students' legal costs.
It is not necessary to repeat the facts surrounding the brutal repression of the students at the time of the November 1997 APEC summit. I would like to say this, however: during this peaceful demonstration, the students were roughed up and subjected to strong-arm tactics as well as pepper spray.
And now what is happening? The same thing all over again. Now this government wants to use the legal system to again subject them to legal strong-arm tactics, to pepper them all over again.
On the one side, we have the Liberal government with its high-priced lawyers at $150 or $200 an hour. Then we have the RCMP with its high-priced lawyers as well. On the other side, we have the students, with no legal representation, unable to afford it because they are students.
As a lawyer, I know this. Heaven only knows, in our system, if someone does not have a lawyer, the dice are loaded against him right from the start. It seems that this government, as usual, has decided to side with Goliath against David. The brutal repression at the APEC summit reminds us of the bad old days in Eastern Europe and the systematic repression so representative of the methods of dictator Suharto himself.
Worse still, the Prime Minister had the nerve to joke about this, to say the least, troubling situation on several occasions. Again yesterday, he lightly dismissed the RCMP's heavy-handed response, which he himself ordered.
Beyond the regrettable facts I have just presented, there is also the mystery of who authorized the brutal repression so at odds with the human rights principles of all Canadians and Quebeckers.
The government justifies trade with various countries where democracy is non-existent, or very nearly so, by saying that Canada will be able to serve as an example of an open, democratic society that respects freedom of expression, but the Prime Minister is promoting a completely opposite image of the country. Instead of exporting our tolerance and our democratic system, the government is importing brutally repressive and, at the very least, reactionary tactics unfortunately still common to many countries.
We can only think that the Prime Minister himself took a personal hand in the security arrangements for visiting dignitaries. This attitude is utterly unacceptable.
For nearly two months, the government has been using the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister himself to divert opposition questions in every possible way, to conceal the truth, and to make sure Canadians do not really know what really happened in this affair.
Hiding behind phoney arguments, the government appears to be adopting the same cover-up approach as it did in the Somalia affair. This government is starting to make a habit of doing this. The desire for a cover-up is so strong that this government is refusing to help get at the truth by providing the students with assistance with their legal fees. There is only one reason for this, and I am weighing my words carefully: to conceal the truth.
By refusing to pay the students' lawyers, the Liberals are trying to muzzle the students, while the RCMP and the government are being represented by lawyers who are on the public payroll.
Again yesterday, in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, several motions were tabled with a view to casting some light on this matter. Unfortunately, to my dismay as a young activist, the Liberal backbenchers acted like well-trained puppy dogs. When the government tells them to do this or that, they do it. They would jump off a bridge if they were told to. They have absolutely no independence, they cannot think for themselves.
Yesterday, all we wanted was for the Solicitor General and our NDP colleague to come and give their versions of the facts. The Liberal members voted against that motion. What we wanted yesterday was not to put the Solicitor General, or our NDP colleague, or any one else on trial, just to get at the truth. So, it would appear that this government is unfortunately allergic to the truth.
As I was saying earlier, it is a sad day for Canadian democracy when we have to discuss this matter in this House. As far as all Quebeckers and Canadians are concerned, funding for the students is a matter of course. It is totally absurd to have the Solicitor General keep repeating that the commission has to be allowed to do its work as the Liberals reject the commission's requests.
As last week's Maclean's pointed out, this entire business reveals the veritable regime almost of terror the Prime Minister imposes on his cabinet and on the dog and pony show of members making up his caucus. This autocratic Prime Minister, who can even joke about one of the blackest periods in Canada's recent history, brooks no dissent and no independence.
I appeal to the mind and conscience of all members of this House, regardless of their political party, in asking them to vote in favour of this motion. No partisan consideration may be invoked to justify a vote against this motion. If there were ever a time to set aside partisanship, it is today.
Rather than contemplating the reprisals the Prime Minister might heap on them, the Liberal members of this House—a number are watching me today—should contemplate the position they occupy and the primary role that is theirs to play, that of representing their electorate. It is their duty to represent them well. They must have a sense of debt toward their electors.
At the end of the day, those who oppose this motion will be marked as collaborators in this violent act of repression and will have to live with the consequences.
Apec Inquiry October 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the House no longer has confidence in the Solicitor General, the RCMP no longer has confidence in him and neither does the public.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, by adamantly defending his Solicitor General, he is actually fuelling public cynicism about politicians in general?
Apec Inquiry October 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this government is trying not only to control and manipulate the ongoing investigation into the events at the APEC conference but also, and this is serious, to control and manipulate its coverage by the media. That is why a complaint was filed with the ombudsman at the CBC and the journalist relocated.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by engaging in behaviour that is totally unacceptable from a government, he is bringing discredit upon all political institutions?
Solicitor General Of Canada October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has to answer for the Solicitor General because he knows that the Solicitor General's credibility is undermined.
The Solicitor General is also responsible for the RCMP. Now, because of his chattiness, the relationship of trust between the Solicitor General and the RCMP is broken. In any case, since the RCMP no longer trusts the minister, why, once again, does he not resign?
Solicitor General Of Canada October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has talked about bad political theatre in this House. The problem is that his performance is a dismal comedy. One thing is sure: the Solicitor General is an unrepentant chatterbox and his chattering is incompatible with his duties.
The little credibility left to the RCMP commission of inquiry is lost because of the actions of the Solicitor General. If he wants the commission to regain its credibility, why does he not resign?
Apec Summit October 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, how can it be that a minister who does not know better than to talk about his business in public could have sufficient judgement to know that what he said can be prejudicial to an inquiry?
Apec Summit October 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that, had the solicitor general spoken of the Airbus affair in the plane, he would have dealt differently with him.
Could the Prime Minister explain why discussion of the Airbus scandal is serious enough to warrant dismissing the minister, while discussion of the APEC matter, which is also under investigation, is not serious and he will do nothing? Why the double standard?