Dick Proctor

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the minister's comments about how important the agriculture file is in Qatar. What does the government plan to do in the event the changes he is talking about do not come to fruition?

He will know that Canadian farmers in some sectors in particular have been hurt over several years as a result of high subsidies in Europe and the United States. Obviously the government's intent is to reduce or at least to begin to reduce those subsidies at Qatar. What happens if the Europeans, the Americans and others put their feet down and say no, they will not do that?

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the next round of the WTO begins this week and will continue to promote a definition of free trade which is far too narrow.

WTO rulings have been forcing Canada to begin dismantling too many programs including the auto pact, domestic and export support programs for agriculture, and research and development assistance in the high tech sector.

Issues this week at Qatar could include health care and education. Canadians certainly want to ensure these vital sectors remain in the public non-profit sector.

The New Democratic Party remains adamantly opposed to the WTO because it fails to meet the most basic and elemental tests of democracy, equality and sustainability.

Until the WTO devises a rules based economy that begins to protect people and not just the multinationals, until we have enforcement of rules to protect human rights, working men and women including farmers and our environment, this party shall continue to oppose the WTO with vigour.

[Independence of the RCMP, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this private member's motion. I congratulate the member from the Bloc for her initiative in the matter. I associate myself with the remarks not only of the hon. Bloc member but of the previous speaker in fully supporting the motion.

I will use my few minutes today to focus on three aspects: first, the findings of Commissioner Ted Hughes; second, the response of RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli; and third, what the RCMP has or has not learned as a result of the Hughes inquiry.

I have read the final report of the Hughes inquiry. It is clear that Commissioner Hughes pointed some pretty blunt fingers not only at the RCMP but at government officials. For the record I will go through some of those.

Mr. Hughes acknowledged in his closing observations that many of the examples of substandard performance reflected failures in the planning process. I will not go into detail but he referred to briefings and late buses at the UBC campus on November 25, 1997.

Referring to the open space in front of Green College, Hughes said there was a:

—failure to realize that the grounds of Green College located outside the secure zone were an obvious gathering place for those residents of Green College who had previously indicated a desire to protest, with the result that no contingency plans were in place to address the presence of protesters at that location.

Regarding the march to the fence which we kept seeing over and over on television, Mr. Hughes said there was a:

—failure to have anyone in a command role at the well publicized noon rally who was aware of the protesters' planned civil disobedience and was in a position to realistically evaluate late-breaking information of dubious credibility about the expected actions of the protesters.

I find this particularly significant. Mr. Hughes said:

My inability to determine who made the all important decision to allow protesters to have unobstructed access to the security fence tells a great deal about the state of readiness of the police to meet the challenges of the day. I will always believe that, but for that decision, based on dubious information, the events on campus from noon until 4.30 that afternoon may well have been non-violent throughout, though boisterous, noisy and challenging for the police. It was the violence that broke out at the flagpole at noon that set the stage for many of the subsequent events that unfolded over the remainder of the afternoon.

There are also references to the blockage of exit routes, the involvement of local RCMP detachments and the arrest of Jaggi Singh. Here Mr. Hughes said:

Had the UBC Detachment been properly integrated into the security planning process, I believe that Mr. Singh would not have been arrested on November 24 or at any other time for the November 7 megaphone incident. Had the UBC Detachment been required to consult on its plan to eliminate Mr. Singh from campus on November 25 with wise and seasoned heads with full knowledge of the background of the leaders' meeting, I believe that the plan would never have been implemented.

Similarly regarding the arrest of Mark Brooks, another frontline protester, Commissioner Ted Hughes said:

This was a precipitous arrest made in an atmosphere of crisis, directly attributable to the chaos that resulted from inadequate police planning to ensure the orderly and safe exit of the world leaders.

There were also negative references to the strip searching of all female protesters at the Richmond cells. Mr. Hughes was very condemnatory of the RCMP or police action at that time.

Mr. Hughes identified two areas where he believed the federal government acted improperly. The first was the removal of tenters from the grounds of the Museum of Anthropology that has been alluded to earlier. Mr. Hughes wrote:

I am satisfied that it was because of the government's intervention that the tenters were removed that evening. Were it not for that involvement, the contrary view of Site Commander Thompsett would have prevailed. As it happened, his view did not carry the day because of the acquiescence of other RCMP personnel, principally Supt. May, who had succumbed to government influence and intrusion in an area where such influence and intrusion were inappropriate.

Mr. Hughes was critical of the improper and inappropriate level of federal government involvement in the RCMP's provision of security with respect to the size of the demonstration area adjacent to the law school. He noted that the government's efforts did not prevail due to the intervention of others such as Site Commander Thompsett on behalf of the protesters. Had those intervenors not prevailed Mr. Hughes noted that the security challenges the RCMP faced on November 25 may well have increased.

In his final comments Mr. Hughes said:

It is inescapable that in most instances where I have found police conduct to have been either inappropriate to the circumstances of inconsistent with charter rights, the primary responsibility rests with those who held key offices in security planning for the APEC conference. That may go to the highest level of RCMP headquarters in Ottawa. This seems to have been the source of approval, if not direction, that security services on November 25 would be delivered by officers who were, at best, on the periphery of the two year planning process, while those intimately involved in that process were out of command from the moment the APEC conference opened.

Regarding gate 6, Staff Sergeant Stewart and the incident involving pepper spray, Commissioner Hughes wrote:

I feel very much the same way about the involvement of Staff Sergeant Stewart and those on site with him at Gate 6. He never should have been placed in the position of having four minutes to clear the road. Given the pressure he was put under, he made some unfortunate decisions but far more culpable, in my view, are those in positions of responsibility who allowed the Gate 6 events to develop and unfold as they did.

We need to point that out in the context of the former solicitor general's remarks in an unguarded moment a few years ago. In reference to Staff Sergeant Stewart he said “Hughie may be the guy who takes the fall”. It is pretty clear from the report of the commissioner that this goes right to the top in Ottawa. Staff Sergeant Stewart should never have had to take the fall. Nor has he as a result of the Hughes report.

I think Commissioner Zaccardelli is supportive of the report although, as has been noted earlier, he does not agree with Ted Hughes that there is a need for statutory codification. That is perhaps shortsighted on the part of the commissioner of the RCMP.

Commissioner Zaccardelli said a co-operative relationship between the police and peaceful protestors is essential. I would challenge Commissioner Zaccardelli and the current solicitor general to take that comment in the context of what happened in Quebec City several years after the APEC inquiry. They should tell that to the mostly young people who were detained arbitrarily for several days before either being charged or sent on their way.

Three young people from my riding of Palliser were in Quebec City. They insist they were doing absolutely nothing wrong. They were sitting on the grounds outside the perimeter fence and security area when they were arrested by the police.

Our caucus in its entirety was in Quebec City. We saw tens of thousands of peaceful protestors. Yes, we acknowledge that some were bent on violence and disorder. However the overwhelming percentage of people were there to protest a cause they felt strongly about. I am concerned that the RCMP learned virtually nothing from its APEC actions.

They will not follow through with the security at APEC because of the flaws that have been identified by Hughes and others but they have stepped up security a lot more. We have seen that with whatever WTO protest is involved. This is all even before Bill C-36, the bill on anti-terrorism.

[Trade, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister will know that western Canadian premiers met last August with governors from 18 western states. The Canadian government kindly prepared a briefing book for our premiers out west that contained messages and talking points on everything from P.E.I. potatoes to greenhouse tomatoes to Great Lakes water.

Strangely absent from the notes, however, was any reference to the growing disparity between grain and oilseed producers and prices because the government will not match U.S. support payments.

Why were matters such as export subsidies and domestic support for grains and oilseeds not given any profile whatsoever by his department in the briefing to western Canadian premiers?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 18th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear all of the hon. member's speech but I did hear him make reference to the fact that it is well known that Canada is a safe haven for terrorists. I want to disagree with that assessment, but more important I want to say for the record that this is not what the director of CSIS, Mr. Ward Elcock, said this morning. In fact he said exactly the opposite before the immigration committee. Not only is it inaccurate to say that Canada is a safe haven for terrorists because it is misleading, it is unfortunate that we convey this kind of impression to Canadians at a time when we are living through such a highly charged, emotional, post-September 11 atmosphere. I think it is extremely important that we put things in context.

I just came from a panel that included a member from the minister's own party. She made the point that the worst thing to fear is fear of the unknown. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, as Roosevelt said. Let us get factual information out that Canadians can deal with, not overblown rhetoric, as saying Canada is a safe haven for terrorists would suggest.

[National Co-Op Week, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian co-ops and credit unions are alive and well in Canada and play an important economic and social role in all of our communities.

Co-ops are found in every sector of our economy including health and housing. The Calgary Consumer Co-op is the largest in North America. The Mountain Equipment Co-op specializes in high-tech and wilderness gear. The Prairie Dog is an alternative co-operative newspaper in Regina.

In the future I believe that co-ops will offer some positive alternatives to some of the negative effects of globalization.

As a proud credit union member myself there is much to celebrate in saluting all co-ops and credit unions, their volunteers and employees. I wish to acknowledge two individuals directly, Dan Palsich in northwest Saskatchewan, a 30 year co-operator, and Bill Knight from southeast Saskatchewan who steps down later this year after a six year stint as president and CEO of the Credit Union Central of Canada.

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate on Bill C-36. If we were to poll members of the House and ask them if they would want to ensure that at the end of the day we have struck an appropriate balance between eliminating terrorist activities and the protection of civil liberties, the vast majority of members on all sides of the House would say yes. In other words there would be no substantial disagreement on that point.

However there would probably be some difference of opinion between where we find the appropriate balance between ensuring that Canada is doing everything that it needs to do to keep the undesirable terrorist elements out of the country while protecting the liberties that we have come to enjoy, respect and expect in our country.

I heard in the last few minutes some things that would suggest the balance might be difficult to find. I heard concern from the member from the Bloc Quebecois about the need for parliament to examine this law earlier than three years, which is what is being proposed.

I heard concern from the Conservative Party that the Minister of Justice would be the one responsible for dealing with all elements of access to information. I believe that raises a bit of caution. My colleague from Saskatoon--Wanuskewin repeated yet again that Canada is known around the world as a safe haven for terrorists. It was noteworthy this morning to have heard Ward Elcock from CSIS saying before the immigration committee exactly the opposite, that it was not only unhelpful but untrue to characterize the country as a safe haven for terrorists.

I suspect the balance will not be all that easy to find and some of the critics of the bill have not been shy about coming forward and saying that this is a gross overreaction to the situation we have. They point to things such as preventive detention. While it is not as draconian as some, it moves Canada well along that road.

When I walked over to the House today I noticed the large demonstration that was taking place on Parliament Hill by Air Canada employees who were concerned about their future, partly in the wake of September 11 and partly by the problems that existed well before September 11.

One wonders whether in the future and after the bill becomes law those kinds of protests would be able to take place as freely and as openly as we would want to see happen and should happen.

I would be concerned for farmers, who have publicized their concerns about what has happened to the farm economy over the last few years by taking up protests and slowing traffic down on highways. Is that something that will continue to be allowed?

We have also had roads blocked in rural parts of Canada by environmentalists preventing lumber companies from going into the forests. One has to be concerned about the balance and how far the legislation would go. I am not trying to get people excited but we do have to be cautious. Other people are being very good in pointing out some of those potential concerns.

The definition of terrorism or terrorist activity, because terrorism is not defined in what is proposed, is both vague and impossibly broad. It states that any action taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes that causes property damage or disrupts an essential service facility or system would be considered a terrorist activity, and the police would have the power to arrest or detain anyone it believes may have information. This is a significant change from where we are now and where we have been for many years in this country.

It has been stated that the potential for abuse is high. For example, a former employee of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada was released after September 17 because he had the same first and last names as those suspected in either the terrorist attacks of September 11 or was on an FBI or Interpol list. That individual has not been reinstated. The company is not talking at all to the media or to anyone else. These are the kinds of problems we need to be very concerned about.

Bill C-36 suggests that police and other law enforcement agencies in Canada do not have sufficient powers to arrest. The civil libertarians who are speaking out against the bill remind us that is simply not true.

Will the curtailment of certain civil liberties win the fight against terrorism? I would point out that recent history is not particularly kind to those who hold that view. I reference the experience of the British and the Irish Republican Army in the mid-seventies and thereafter when the forces against terrorism continued in ever increasing amounts but the bombing continued.

It was only after the government went on a different course of action to find a political solution that it began to find a better solution to what transpired over the last 25 or 28 years in Northern Ireland and the U.K.

I consider myself to be a civil libertarian. There have been highly emotional and charged times when certain citizens in Canada had their civil liberties curtailed to a very large degree. I am speaking of the Ukrainians after the first world war; the Japanese Canadians before, during and after the second world war; and the militants in Quebec in 1970.

I was at an event in Toronto in 1970. Then Solicitor General of Canada Jean-Pierre Goyer demanded that the audience, who was very hostile to the introduction of the War Measures Act, name one person outside the province of Quebec who had been detained or had his or her civil liberties infringed upon as a result of the introduction of the War Measures Act.

There was no question that there were many thousands of people in the province of Quebec whose civil liberties were definitely violated at that time. We were able to point out to the solicitor general that there were indeed people in Ontario and other provinces who had problems in that area.

Whether they are Ukrainians, Japanese Canadians or Quebecers, as Tom Walkom from the Toronto Star pointed out yesterday:

In all cases the general public applauded these actions at the time. In all cases the general public decided later that the country had made a terrible mistake.

It is important that the bill go now to committee and be appropriately studied to make sure that at the end of the day we have a bill which protects the country and Canadians against terrorist activities but at the same time guards our civil liberties to the greatest extent possible.

[Agriculture, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in a similar vein the agriculture minister has said he would wait until this year's crop was harvested before assessing the damage. The numbers are in and without doubt there is another disaster looming in rural Canada.

According to the data, realized net farm income will plummet by more than 70% this year in two critically important agricultural provinces, Saskatchewan and P.E.I., and by 32% overall across Canada.

Now that he is armed with the facts will the minister inform the House how the government intends to respond to this latest agricultural crisis?

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on keeping very good time and I certainly will keep within the time limits myself. This is a take note debate on international actions against terrorism and the previous speaker says it is a crucial debate. In fact I do not think it is a very crucial debate at all. If it were a crucial debate there would be more than about 10 people in the House. This is a little gabfest in a very large room.

I would like to see more international action against terrorism. I would like to know why it is not the United Nations leading this international war against terrorism and why it is basically the United States, ostensibly under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; it is NATO, with 19 countries and only 1 of them Muslim, versus the United Nations, with 189 countries and many of them Muslim. I think we would have a far better buy-in for dealing with the terrorists and bringing them to justice if we had the auspices of the United Nations in the forefront.

It is my contention as well, despite listening to the remarks of the member for Nepean--Carleton many hours ago during the earlier debate, that it is not clear that the U.S. led strikes have the framework of international law. The member for Nepean--Carleton told us many things about the relationship between the United Nations and the United States, except that one of the first things the United States did after September 11 was to quickly pay up its more than $500 million in arrears to the United Nations plus another $300 million in interest: hush money or perhaps hush-up money for it to then get on with the job it wanted to do, ostensibly under the auspices of NATO.

Of course the perpetrators need to be brought to justice. It should be done under an international tribunal.

I do not think there is an adjective strong enough to describe why parliament was not reconvened when this war was called a week ago yesterday; perhaps the words incredulous or unbelievable could describe it. Lloyd Axworthy, to whom the previous speaker referred, made the noteworthy comment in the Globe and Mail that in fact parliament should have been recalled immediately. I think it is a sad commentary that it was not.

A humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Afghanistan as desperate refugees face starvation and death as they flee the terror of both the Taliban and the U.S. and U.K. bombs.

Canadians need to be vigilant here at home to protect against unwarranted attacks on basic civil liberties and human rights. I hope the anti-terrorism bill will do the job the government obviously feels it can do. We will see in the days ahead whether it can.

We in this party condemn as strongly as anyone else the events of September 11 and we call for justice to be done before an international tribunal with strong participation from Muslims and Muslim countries.

We support our military unequivocally as our troops undertake this mission assigned to them. We wish them a safe home and the support of their families while they are away. I say that as the member who represents 15 Wing in Moose Jaw, which is now the NATO flight training centre in Canada.

This is a take note, no vote debate, but I submit that votes must be held before further military adventures are embarked upon in other countries, as has been alluded to in recent days.

Closer to home, as many other speakers have noted, we have to fight against the rising tide of intolerance and racism. We have to contribute much more generously than we have until now to an international humanitarian campaign to assist Afghani refugees.

On that point I note that in recent days a letter signed by representatives of Catholic, United, Anglican, Lutheran, Mennonite and Quaker churches argued for more international aid as an example of the type of measure that will eradicate terrorism in the long term.

The essential non-military character of the struggle against terrorism must be restored, according to that letter from the churches.

All member countries of the United Nations need to ratify the treaty that establishes the International Criminal Court.

We want the government to provide security for Canadians and a comprehensive review of security measures to meet the legitimate security concerns while respecting civil rights and liberties.

Political parties and Canadians who support the military action are trusting the military of the U.S. and the United Kingdom to strike only terrorist targets. As celebrated author John Le Carré wrote in the Globe and Mail last Saturday, we are all hoping that Osama bin Laden will be “blown to smithereens by one of those clever bombs that we keep reading about that kill terrorists in caves but don't break the crockery”. Le Carré says America is longing for “more friends and fewer enemies” but that as a result of its action what it “is storing up for itself...is yet more enemies”.

Ten years ago, Le Carré says, he went around the world at the end of the cold war talking about the unprecedented chance to transform the global community, but there was no Marshall Plan, no programs for ideological young people to go off on and create a better world. Instead what we have seen over the last 10 years is a world where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The moment has passed and will not come again for a long time, according to John Le Carré.

Senator Douglas Roche said that bringing perpetrators to justice is a worthy goal but does not justify killing innocent people and destroying the infrastructure of a country that already had one million refugees before the bombing ever began. He went on to say that “militarism” is not an answer to terrorism.

Some people say that we should bomb the Taliban and send bin Laden back to the Stone Age. It is to laugh at when we look at the pictures of Afghanistan. That country is already in the Stone Age. One of the biggest and most hilarious news stories of last week came several days after the bombing began, when the United States was declaring that it now had air supremacy over Afghanistan, a country whose main source of transportation appears to be donkeys, according to the news media and the pictures we see on television.

Murray Dobbin says that not only is continuous bombing of Afghanistan a pitiful response to unforgivable carnage, but it is certain to make things worse.

Canada could play an important role in the long term struggle against terrorism, but only by rejecting U.S. unilateralism and making every effort to force a genuine international response through the United Nations. With every bomb that falls, that opportunity slips further and further away.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the motion as it has been presented today contains specific timetables and guidelines which recommend that the government should report to the House within 90 days its action plan to deal with outbreaks of racism and racial intolerance. If the government followed that it would go a long way to diffusing the current nasty situation to which the member has alluded.