EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 138
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 20, 1998
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| NUCLEAR AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-443. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1005
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-444. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| PETITIONS
|
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Children
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1010
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—APEC Inquiry
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Motion
|
1015
1020
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1025
1030
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1035
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1040
1045
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1050
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1055
1100
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1105
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1110
1115
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1120
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1125
1130
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1135
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1140
1145
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1150
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1155
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1200
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1205
1210
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1215
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1220
1225
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1230
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1235
1240
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1245
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1250
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1255
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1300
1305
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1310
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. John McKay |
1315
1320
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1325
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1330
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1335
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1340
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1345
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1350
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN MISSION IN CHIAPAS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1400
| VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| TELUS MOBILITY
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1405
| THE LATE NORMAND RACICOT
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| BILL GOLD
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| LESTER B. PEARSON CENTRE
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1410
| CIRQUE DU SOLEIL
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| CÉGEP DE MAISONNEUVE
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| NEW BRUNSWICK BYELECTION
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1415
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1425
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1445
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1450
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| AIRCRAFT SAFETY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1455
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1500
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—APEC Inquiry
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1510
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1515
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1520
1525
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1530
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1535
1540
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1545
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1550
1555
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1600
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1605
1610
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1615
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1620
1625
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1630
1635
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1640
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1645
1650
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1655
| Mr. John Bryden |
1700
1705
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1710
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1715
1745
(Division 239)
| Amendment negatived
|
1750
1755
(Division 240)
| Motion negatived
|
| TOBACCO ACT
|
| Bill C-42. Second reading
|
1800
1810
(Division 241)
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Motion
|
1820
(Division 242)
| Motion negatived
|
| EXTRADITION ACT
|
| Bill C-40. Second reading
|
(Division 243)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-235. Second reading
|
1835
(Division 244)
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-219. Second reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1840
1845
1850
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1855
1900
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1905
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1910
1915
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1920
1925
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1930
1935
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1940
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| APEC Summit
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1945
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 138
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 20, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
NUCLEAR AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-443, an act to amend the Nuclear Energy Act and
the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my bill attempts to correct a
longstanding and I think outrageous conflict of interest in that
the same minister of the government responsible for protecting
public interest and public safety is also responsible for the
sale of nuclear technology around the word.
I do not believe it is possible for the same minister to fulfil
both of those roles without being in conflict of interest, so we
are attempting to correct that situation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1005
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce this
private member's bill today.
The concept for it began when Craig Powell, Amber Keuben, Brandy
Kueben and Stephanie Smith were all instantly killed by a drunk
driver on June 23 near Morley, Alberta as they were returning
from a camping trip.
The drunk driver in this case was Christopher Goodstoney. He
was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death
and one count of criminal negligence causing injury.
Criminal Code sentencing provides that a court must, in imposing
a sentence, take into consideration various things including
whether the offender is aboriginal.
I believe that all offenders should be treated equally. With
this enactment the court would no longer be mandated to give
special consideration because of race or ethnic origin.
I am happy to submit this bill on their behalf.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition this morning on behalf of Kay
Malmas, a constituent of mine in Westlock, who happens to be the
mother of Barbara Denelesko who was senselessly murdered by three
young offenders. These three young offenders are currently back
on the street, only two years after the murder of Barbara
Denelesko, which disturbs and outrages not only Mrs. Malmas but
many other of my constituents.
I would like to present this petition demanding tougher penalties
under the Young Offenders Act on behalf of Mrs. Malmas.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of Canadians living in my
riding from Chestermere Lake and in and around the Calgary area.
The petitioners request that the House of Commons support and
enact Bill C-225 which would prohibit the definition of spouse to
be changed from its traditional status and that the definition of
marriage be as between a single male and a single female.
CHILDREN
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present three petitions.
The first petition comes from residents of my riding who are
concerned about sexual offences against children. The
petitioners support Bill C-284, which is currently on its way to
committee. This bill would allow parents to make informed
decisions on the hiring of those who care for children.
ABORTION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two additional petitions that I would like to present which
relate to abortion. These citizens point out that the legal
rights of the unborn are protected under the United Nations
charter on the rights of the child.
These citizens are calling for a national referendum to determine
whether people are in favour of government funding for abortions
on demand.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed
by many residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas, the
Vancouver area and elsewhere in British Columbia that notes with
concern that the Government of Canada continues to be at the
table to negotiate an international trade agreement called the
multilateral agreement on investment, or the MAI, and I might
add, despite the fact that France has pulled out of this
particular discussion.
They note that the MAI is the latest in a series of regional and
global agreements which in the name of liberalizing trade and
investment expands the powers of multinational corporations at
the expense of the powers of governments to intervene in the
marketplace on behalf of our social, cultural, environmental and
health care goals.
1010
The petitioners point out that the MAI is undemocratic.
Therefore they call upon parliament to reject the current
framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek
an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve
a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the availability of governments to act in the
public interest.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I too have a couple of petitions concerning the MAI in which the
petitioners call upon parliament to reject the current framework
of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek an
entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a
rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the ability of governments to act in the public
interest.
This is almost exactly what the prime minister of France said
should be sought when he rejected, on behalf of France, the
current negotiations at the OECD. I am sure that these
petitioners would want the Canadian government to follow suit,
pull out of the negotiations at the OECD and seek an entirely
different table at which to settle these difficult issues.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians of Serbian descent
criticizing the actions of the Canadian ministry of foreign
affairs with regard to Serbia.
The petitioners ask the House of Commons to consider the best
interests of all citizens in Serbia for peace and democracy in
the Kosovo crisis and to act on the above with honesty and
integrity.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): moved:
That this House urges the government
to agree to the request of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission
inquiring into incidents at the Vancouver APEC summit that the
government provide separate funded legal representation for the
complainants in the inquiry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to indicate
that I will be sharing my 20 minutes with the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas.
This motion is certainly a timely motion, given the decision by
the government last week not to provide funding for the students
who are appearing at the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. We
believe that justice demands that they be given this funding. We
believe that this demand is justified not only by an elementary
sense of fairness in this respect, but also by the demands and
the requests of the commission.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this in the
House for some days now. The point that the government seems not
to appreciate or does not want to acknowledge is that the
commission has twice asked the government for funding for these
students.
Why this unusual request? Because the government itself earlier
requested that it be allowed to do something out of the ordinary
and have a battalion of lawyers there on behalf of the government
and the RCMP. It is not out of the ordinary in terms of fairness
for the students to expect that something similar might be done
for them. It is not out of the ordinary as far as the commission
is concerned because it has twice requested that the government
do this.
By putting this motion today the NDP hopes to give the
opportunity to the House and particularly to Liberal backbenchers
to express their outrage at the position the government has
taken.
We have learned that the Liberal backbenchers are being whipped
into shape as usual. We are disappointed to hear that, but we
hope that by the end of the day we might be able to persuade some
of them, if not all of them, to come around to the wisdom of this
position and vote with us.
Vote with us not just for the sake of the students, but perhaps
also to draw a line against the increasing arrogance of the Prime
Minister's office and the Prime Minister himself and the way in
which dissent is constantly being stifled on that side and
throughout the country. The pepper spraying of the students at
the APEC summit has become a symbol of that for all Canadians.
1015
It is not just a question of pepper spraying but also other
things that happened at the APEC summit. People were being asked
to take signs down when the signs posed absolutely no threat to
the security of any of the leaders at the APEC summit. People
were being asked to sign pledges that they would not do so again.
They were basically being asked to sign away their charter
rights to freedom of expression.
There were all kinds of things happening at the APEC summit
which concerned Canadians and the NDP. In that respect, although
we have had a lot of attention paid to this issue by everybody in
the last little while, I want to remind the House that this issue
was first raised in the House of Commons on November 26, 1997 by
me on behalf of my party. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister at
that time whether he would apologize for the joke the Prime
Minister had made with respect to the pepper spraying. It was
the incident where the Prime Minister was asked on TV about the
pepper spraying and he said “Well, pepper is something I put on
my plate”. We went after the Deputy Prime Minister at that time
as the Prime Minister was not present. We asked him about the
appropriateness of those remarks and other things that had
happened at the APEC summit.
It all could have been different if the Prime Minister at that
time had taken an entirely different approach. Nobody takes any
joy in this, but how different it would have been had the Prime
Minister said how sorry and concerned he was about the students
who had been pepper sprayed and that he was going to look into
it. Afterward he might have come forward and said that perhaps
they had overmanaged the APEC affair and they may have been too
zealous in their concern for the comfort of visiting leaders,
particularly Mr. Suharto. They could have said it was
regrettable and that they would not let it happen again.
Would that not have been preferable, I say to my Liberal
colleagues, than all that we have gone through now. The Prime
Minister, the solicitor general, the government and the Liberal
Party itself are digging themselves in deeper and deeper just out
of a refusal to admit a simple mistake.
I would hope that this debate today will provide an opportunity
for the government, as we have tried to provide other
opportunities in question period, to fess up and say that it has
handled this wrong. Or are the Liberals going to insist and are
Liberal backbenchers going to collaborate in insisting that they
have done nothing wrong, that nothing untoward has happened and
it is only a matter of letting the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission do its job, as we have heard time and time again in
this House?
I think this raises a larger question, one which we have
certainly paid attention to on this side of the House in the NDP.
That is, is there any truth to the argument often forwarded by
the government that if we simply put aside human rights, labour
standards, environmental matters and all these difficult
questions that get in the way of unregulated commerce and the
marketplace, if we trade with everybody in an uncritical way and
devote our entire foreign policy to cutting deals, to team Canada
and to just making money, that this will help other people to
become like us. So goes the argument offered by the government,
that somehow our values will rub off on them.
APEC shows us that there is a very real danger their values rub
off on us when we invite authoritarian and dictatorial leaders to
this country and we act in a way as to protect their
sensitivities. What are their sensitivities? Their
sensitivities are about democracy. They are very sensitive to
the whole idea of democracy. They are not just sensitive, they
are allergic to the whole idea of democracy.
1020
Instead of giving them a lesson when they come here about
dissent and democracy and the fact that Canada and other
democratic countries operate in a different way, instead of using
that opportunity to stand up for our own values, we back off. We
cater to them.
I think we do the wrong thing. And it is not just myself and my
colleagues who are saying this. There are people very
experienced in the world of dealing with east and west matters
who say that the only way to deal with these things is to stand
up for our own values and to play hardball with people who want
to question those values. I am thinking more recently of the
former governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, who has said that you
do not get anywhere by kowtowing to people who have different
values.
Yet this is not what the Liberal government has made a name for
itself in doing. In fact it has made a name for itself by being
almost supine in its relationship with these other countries, to
the point where it has made former governments which did not have
outstanding records on human rights look good.
I think we express today the embarrassment, the indignation and
the regret many Canadians have at the way APEC was handled in the
first place, but even more so in the way the government has
refused to admit that something wrong happened there, that the
Prime Minister was wrong in the way he dealt with this issue and
the casual way he has now joked many times about this issue, as
if he just does not get it. He just does not get it.
I tell my Liberal colleagues that we are going to persist with
this until somebody over there gets it. This is their
opportunity to show the rest of Canada that they get it, even if
their Prime Minister and their leader does not. This is their
opportunity to show that they take no comfort in the fact that
baseball bats were not used and only pepper spray was used.
Imagine, this is the argument offered by the Prime Minister.
Instead of offering up an apology for his jokes about the use of
pepper spray, he asks us to take comfort in the fact that well,
after all they were not hit on the head with a baseball bat.
This is a pretty low time in Canadian politics. We hope that
our colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party will take an
opportunity to show a little independence, not just on behalf of
their own self-esteem and self-respect, but on behalf of the
democratic values that all of us hold in this place.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join with my colleague, the hon.
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, to explain why it is we believe
that this is one of the most important motions to come before the
House and why we chose to allot a full day of debate on this
fundamental issue.
This is about whether or not we as Canadians and we as elected
members of the House are seriously prepared to say that indeed we
do want to get at the truth to the extent possible within the
framework of the public complaints commission. We want to get at
that truth and we want to ensure that the students who are the
complainants before that commission have equitable and fair
representation.
I had the opportunity to attend some of the commission hearings.
There is at the present time a profound imbalance. On the one
hand there is a battery of lawyers representing the RCMP and the
federal government; in fact just last week they hired three more
lawyers. On the other hand there is a group of students,
complainants in what is clearly an adversarial process, who have
no legal representation funded whatsoever. That is profoundly
unjust.
It is not just New Democrats who are making that argument. The
public complaints commission itself on two separate occasions has
appealed to the government, to the solicitor general, to do the
right thing, to recognize that fairness demands legal
representation for these students.
Madam Justice Barbara Reed of the Federal Court of Canada has
made the same appeal.
She could not have been clearer when she said in July “Without
state funded legal representation, the complainants will be at a
great disadvantage. There will not be a level playing field”.
1025
The allegations and the issues we are dealing with are
profoundly serious. The allegations are that during the time
leading up to the APEC summit and indeed at the summit itself,
far from looking solely at security concerns, the Prime Minister,
his senior officials and other ministers were more concerned
about the comfort of foreign dictators like Suharto. They were
concerned about avoiding embarrassment to those dictators.
Therein lies the line between a democracy and a police state. I
say that very seriously because in a police state there is
political direction of the law enforcement apparatus of the
state. That is what we saw during the APEC summit.
We saw students peacefully and non-violently protesting, being
arrested and being forced to sign conditions of release, which
were illegal, that they would not demonstrate against APEC or any
country in APEC. We saw banners torn down. We saw the Tibetan
flag at the graduate students centre taken down. We saw women,
students strip searched. We saw Indonesian bodyguards, thugs
with guns being allowed into Canada and the Indonesian ambassador
asking what happens if they shoot somebody. We saw most ominously
in many respects a young man named Jaggi Singh, one of the
organizers of the APEC alert being arrested, wrestled to the
ground on the UBC campus by three plainclothes police officers,
handcuffed, thrown in the back of an unmarked car with tinted
glass, driven off and locked up during the APEC summit.
Those are police state tactics. Those are the kind of tactics
we have seen too often in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and
China, as my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona has said. It was
not long ago that we saw those tactics in Chile. As a New
Democrat I join with my colleagues in saying that we celebrate
the fact that the United Kingdom and Spain have said that Augusto
Pinochet is going to be locked up and I hope tried for crimes
against humanity that he committed against the people of Chile
during those dark years. We welcome that.
Today is the moment of truth for Liberal MPs. There is no doubt
that every member on this side of the House is going to support
fairness, justice and equity for those students. I am making a
direct appeal today to those Liberal members of parliament, an
appeal in particular to the member of parliament for Vancouver
Quadra who represents the UBC area. He has said “Yes, I believe
students should have funding”. He has his chance today. He has
the opportunity today to show us whether he is serious about that
or whether he will be whipped into line to say no like one of a
bunch of trained seals.
That member has suggested, as some other Liberal members have
suggested, that it is okay because the commission has the power
to use the $650,000 allocated in supplementary funds for legal
fees for the students. That is absolutely false. The commission
has said that it does not have that power.
More important, it is not just a legal opinion. Madam Justice
Barbara Reed of the Federal Court of Canada said “It seems
reasonably clear that the commission does not have the authority
to issue an order to provide funding for the legal representation
of students”. It could not be any clearer than that. If Liberal
MPs say that the commission has the power to allocate those
funds, I say to them that they are misleading Canadians. The
federal court itself has said that it does not have any such
power.
1030
Yesterday the Canadian Federation of Students, the National
Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Labour
Congress and many others joined in appealing to this government
to do the right thing, to recognize that there must be a sense of
fairness to this process, that in the absence of that, the
complaints commission is a travesty of justice. It is a one
sided farce.
This government keeps saying let the commission do its work. The
commission cannot do its work unless the complainants who appear
before the commission are properly funded.
To Liberal MPs, this is their chance to stand up for fairness
for those student complainants. We should listen. The members
on the government side of the House should listen to the Law
Society of British Columbia which wrote to the solicitor general
and said an essential principle of a democratic government is
that all people are equal before the law and are equally entitled
to fairness and due process.
The inquiry is an adversarial process and the complainants
appearing before the commission are acting as representatives of
the public interest.
The students at UBC were demonstrating not just for themselves
but for all of us as Canadians with some pretty important,
fundamental values. They deserve to have fair and equitable
representation.
I again appeal to members on the government side of the House
and to all members to do the right thing, to provide that funding
and to make sure we get at the truth, so that this is not just a
cover for some pretty appalling police state tactics that took
place.
I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate is on the
amendment.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas was challenging Liberal
members to vote for this motion, to show some independence.
I remind the House this is not a confidence motion. The Prime
Minister to my knowledge has not said it is a matter of
confidence. If he did he would be even more ridiculous than he
was yesterday.
The language of confidence has been taken out of the standing
orders with respect to opposition day motions in 1985. For a
long time we have strived toward a political culture in this
place where members on both sides would feel free to vote as they
wished on opposition day motions without regard to the matter of
confidence.
Regrettably, we have lost a lot of ground in that respect in the
last little while in the way this government has decided to treat
opposition day motions.
It is not just a question of justice and fairness for the
student demonstrators at APEC who made their complaint before the
RCMP public complaints commission.
1035
It is also a matter of parliamentary integrity that they stop
acting like a bunch of trained seals when it comes to these
opposition day motions. When we put motions before this
government that call on it to do things it knows are right this
government should take that opportunity and do so. Perhaps the
member would like to comment on that.
Perhaps the member would like to comment on whether there are
ways in which the Canadian public, in the absence of help from
the government, can give aid and comfort to the students who are
seeking justice in Vancouver as we speak.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for those very thoughtful and incisive comments.
The member is absolutely right. This has nothing to do with the
fundamental issue of confidence in the Government of Canada. This
is a question of whether or not members on the government side of
the House are prepared to support the fundamental principle of a
level playing field before a federally appointed commission. That
is what it is about, not whether or not the government should
fall. We all have our views on that. But that is not the motion
before the House. I trust that Liberal members will look at this
in that light.
With respect to the second issue my colleague raised, there is
an opportunity for those Canadians who do believe deeply that
there should be legal funding if the government does not do the
right thing. There is a fund which has been established by the
B.C. Federation of Labour and I give the federation full credit
for doing this. That fund is called the APEC protesters legal
support fund. They are urging that Canadians from coast to coast
make contributions. I know many have already done so very
generously. I join in appealing to Canadians to do that.
I note once again what this is all about. A young student named
Craig Jones on the UBC campus held up three signs. One said
democracy. One said free speech. One said human rights. Those
signs were torn down. Mr. Jones was wrestled to the ground and
he too was locked up during the APEC summit.
That is what this is about, a profound violation of the basic
charter of rights of Canadians all to kowtow to a brutal foreign
dictator. We saw that.
What about the upcoming APEC summit, the ruthless suppression of
the rights of people in Malaysia, the denial of funding by the
Canadian government of assistance to the peoples summit there?
We question this whole APEC agenda, the so-called trade
liberalization agenda which really is about trampling on human
rights, on the environment and on the rights of people and
putting corporate profit before people.
We say no to that agenda and yes to funding for students to get
at the truth about what happened in those black days around the
last APEC summit in British Columbia.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as a Canadian—and
I am not saying this for the sake of it or because I happen
to sit in this House—I am truly and always concerned about
anything that relates to human rights.
Without getting into specifics, I want to give you a few
examples of what I mean. I had the pleasure of leading the
delegation that travelled to Chiapas to talk about human rights.
Incidentally, I am very pleased with the progress made by the
Reform Party which, at the time, showed no interest in coming to
see what the human rights situation was, but which has now
suddenly become a champion of these rights.
I played an active role regarding the land mines issue. I also
tabled a petition on behalf of the Chinese minority in
Indonesia, whose rights are being trampled. I will stop here,
but I do think I have a very specific interest in human rights.
That is why I would like to know what really happened at the
Vancouver APEC summit, in November. I would really like to know.
1040
This truth is important to me on several levels—naturally on
the level of human rights and on the level of how we conduct
ourselves as a democracy. I think Canadians have the right to
know that.
Beyond the TV images that upset me as they did everyone, what
really happened? There is an organization, an institution
established a number of years ago, whose role was and remains to
direct us to the truth we are all after.
This commission was set up specifically to hear public
complaints about the conduct of the RCMP.
Clearly the mandate of the commission—not only as it appears in
the texts establishing it, but also in the interpretation given
it by its own chair—enables it to determine the truth we are
after.
The interesting part of this is that the commission is an
example of the commissions and administrative tribunals
established by the legislator so that complainants would not
have to pay for legal representation for justice to be done.
I think the motion before us today runs counter to the spirit of
the legislator in establishing this commission. In purely
emotional terms, it would be appealing to support this
initiative. However, we must consider, as the government—and I
was going to say as responsible members—the consequences of
our actions.
And what are these consequences? If administrative tribunals
were set up by the legislator so complainants would not need the
services of a lawyer in order to be heard or for justice to be
done, we are moving in the opposite direction and questioning
the very principle of administrative tribunals. We are
questioning the initiative of the legislator, who, regardless of
the party in power, established this procedure to give the
public a forum it previously lacked. The public has access to
this forum without legal representation.
If we agree with the principle underlying this motion, it
means—and we have to realize this—that we are creating a
precedent. By creating this precedent, we are indicating our
willingness as a government to adhere to the principle of
providing and paying for legal services in other tribunals or in
this one for other cases. This touches on the question of the
costs that may be incurred as well as the real purpose of these
organizations.
There is, of course, a fundamental question we must ask
ourselves: Is this in the Canadian public's interest? Is this in
the interest not only of the complainants in this case but also
of those who may file a complaint in the future before this
commission or any other administrative tribunal? Is it in the
interest of complainants to say that, from now on, lawyers will
be provided or that they will have to be represented by lawyers?
We would then create a precedent so that things would have to be
done the same way in future.
Before making such an important and far-reaching decision, I
think the least we can do is to give it careful consideration. I
have no lessons in democracy to learn from anyone.
I say this in all humility and simplicity. This debate is not
about defending democracy. Any time someone rises in this House
or takes a stand nationally for democracy, whether from the NDP
or any other party represented in this House, I will be the
first to support any initiative to ensure that democracy in this
country is not only respected but also furthered.
1045
That is not the issue. The issue is whether it would be
legitimate and responsible to fund legal representation for an
individual complainant or group of complainants who have access
to justice by extremely clear means that lawmakers intended to
make accessible to all?
I cannot help but conclude on a somewhat sad note. Today, we are
asked to fund legal representation for complainants before this
commission. But for weeks now, every initiative, each and every
question the opposition has put to us in this House had a single
purpose: to undermine the credibility of the RCMP public
complaints commission as an institution.
There is a fundamental contradiction: on the one hand, the
credibility of this institution is not recognized and, on the
other, they want funding for lawyers to make representations to
this commission. This does not make any sense. I am sorry, but
I do not see the logic here.
Too often, the members opposite accuse us of blindly toeing the
party line. I have been in this august place for just over a
year and I cannot remember when the New Democratic Party in
particular allowed its members to vote as they wished. Unless I
am mistaken, and I am sure somebody will be only too glad to
correct me, those members vote along party lines, whether for
private members' bills or other kinds of bills.
In a great majority of cases, the same is true for many
political parties.
I cannot say that this is always so, because I would have to
look into it thoroughly, but what is clear, and I am sure those
following our debates and votes on television see this too, is
that these political parties vote along party lines, but as soon
as we vote according to our conscience and that turns out to be
the party's collective conscience, we are no longer entitled to
do so or are doing something wrong.
It is a double standard. I do not think anyone is fooled.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I charge that the government is undermining the RCMP by making
this a biased process, thereby making it impossible for Canadians
to believe that anything coming out of this inquiry which may
exonerate certain actions of the RCMP is anything more than a
cover-up. I think that is shameful on the part of the
government.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a quick question on
the basis of this quote from the solicitor general: “Civilian
oversight is a very important instrument in a free and democratic
society”, in reference to the public complaints commission,
“and in this case it is that very process, that informal
process, that needs to be protected”.
The government is sending the chief crown prosecutor from
Ottawa, aided by two lawyers from Vancouver, to protect the Prime
Minister and sending David Scott, a highly experienced jurist
from Ottawa. Could the parliamentary secretary advise the House
how the government's sending of four lawyers, probably at a cost
exceeding $1,000 an hour, works toward the so-called process of
this being an informal process? The Prime Minister has turned it
around and has not permitted it to be an informal process by this
very high priced protection for him.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred not to
have to address that, because I have a great deal of respect for
my colleagues, but I am going to do so, because my colleague's
question leaves me no choice. What we have just heard is not
even a question, but an allegation.
All the airing of events that are supposed to have compromised
the integrity of the commission and its work is the upshot of
the deliberate disclosure of a private conversation on the
strength of highly questionable moral principles.
1050
In my opinion, the member opposite should be a little more
honest and objective, and admit that we are not the ones
undermining the commission's credibility. It is they who are
doing so, with their repeated questions, unfounded allegations,
insinuations and witch hunts. That is how they are undermining
the commission's credibility. Them, not us.
When they talk about a cover-up, again this is an allegation for
immediate political reasons that have nothing to do with the
truth we are all seeking. As for the lawyers there to represent
the public servants, that is normal practice.
They are not the ones complaining. The complainants are
complaining.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a number of items I would like to raise but I will limit it
to one or two.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the inquiry and the
commission were really designed to operate without counsel. Yet
we are seeing counsel on one side and not on the other. Twice
the commissioners have asked for counsel to represent the
students.
What we have heard and what we expect to hear further from the
Liberals today is that the commissioners have the right to
allocate some of their resources for the students to hire legal
counsel.
Will the parliamentary secretary tell us right now if he
believes the commissioners of the inquiry can give some of their
$650,000 plus to the students so that they can hire lawyers? Does
he believe that is true in spite of the opinion of the federal
court which clearly says exactly the opposite?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, the question surprises me. It
is as if my colleague were unaware that the government has no
right to dictate the conduct of the commission.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
is a fundamental question. Does the parliamentary secretary
believe, yes or no, that the commission has the power to use its
own funds for legal aid to the students?
Mr. Jacques Saada: What I believe, Mr. Speaker, is of no
importance whatsoever. What is important is to preserve the
integrity of the commission's decision-making process. It is the
one to decide.
Any response one way or the other would be an interference in
the commission's integrity and independence.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege of being able to speak to this debate. I
spent eight days at the hearing and I can bring some perspective
from having been an eye witness to what is going on.
I want members to understand the impact of no funding and what
it means. We have a perspective that there is an ongoing
political cover-up for the Prime Minister. That may or may not
be proven. Time will tell. However, what I saw was a lack of
funding, no funding for Craig Jones, the first complainant, the
first student on the stand. I saw a very experienced counsel for
the RCMP, Mr. Macintosh, Q.C., take Mr. Jones' testimony and
completely turn it on its head.
He had Mr. Jones agreeing that the entire effort was focusing on
security and did not really have anything to do with the
political statement. The reason the complainant, Mr. Jones, was
arrested without charge and detained for 14 hours was that he was
protesting the fact that he was trying to make a political
statement which was shut down by the RCMP at the behest of the
Prime Minister. It was a very skilful cross-examination by Mr.
Macintosh.
Mr. Macintosh, on behalf of the RCMP, also got a subpoena for
Mr. Jones to provide 800 pages of his e-mail. When he gave the
commission those pages, Mr. Arvay who was acting on his behalf in
a unpaid part time capacity said “I am sorry, Mr. Jones, but I
do not have time to go through these 800 pages to determine
relevance of the pages”. It fell on Mr. Considine, counsel for
the hearing.
Mr. Considine also said “I am sorry. I do not have time. I
cannot possibly take a look through these documents to find out
what is relevant”.
1055
I understand he then went to Mr. Jones and asked for his
approval to turn over all 800 pages without any reference as to
relevance of the pages to the inquiry. There was an assumption
on the part of Mr. Arvay, Mr. Considine and Mr. Jones that Mr.
Macintosh, their adversary, would also honour the fact that there
would be the execution of an examination of relevance of the
documents before they were ever used in the cross-examination of
Mr. Jones.
I apologize that this is a little complex but it is very
important to set the background. Mr. Macintosh either knew or
should have known that, when he introduced the documents
pertaining to the e-mails between Mr. Jones and Terry Milewski of
the CBC, those documents were irrelevant. Those documents had
nothing to do with the cross-examination of Mr. Jones.
I state again that Mr. Macintosh, Q.C., either knew or should
have known that the documents were irrelevant. Therefore, what
was the advantage of Mr. Macintosh on behalf of the RCMP
introducing these pieces of paper?
What has been happening is that Mr. Milewski, a seasoned
reporter of the CBC, had been carrying on a relationship with a
number of people who were parties to the issue to try to get
information that was not available to him from the Prime
Minister's Office, from the RCMP or from any other source, Mr.
Jones being one of them. Instead of exchanging verbal
communication, as it happened they exchanged documents that ended
up becoming documents on a piece of paper through e-mail.
Those documents show that Mr. Milewski and Mr. Jones were
exchanging the information they had so that Mr. Milewski could
bring the report to the CBC and to the people of Canada as to
what was going on. I say that he is a reporter of some repute, a
reporter who will check his facts, and a reporter who before
these stories ever went to air made sure that he had it airtight.
The Prime Minister did not like it. Mr. Milewski was like a
terrier on the Prime Minister's ankle.
I come back to the question. Why did Mr. Macintosh, an
experienced counsel, Q.C., not know? As we understand, he should
have known these documents of exchange of information between Mr.
Jones and Mr. Milewski were irrelevant.
I checked with a crown counsel in my constituency who advised me
that it is completely wrong court procedure for documents to be
presented in examination or cross-examination that are irrelevant
and clearly for the purpose of simply introducing the documents
to get them into public record. I will not say it any stronger
than that because I am not a lawyer and I do not understand the
implications.
Because of the lack of counsel for Mr. Jones and the lack of
counsel for the students, we now have the Prime Minister's press
secretary, Mr. Donolo, using what Mr. Macintosh did in getting
Milewski's information into the public record to attack Mr.
Milewski, getting him off the case and getting the one reporter
who was probably the furthest ahead on this issue out of the way.
Was there collusion? I think that is a question the Canadian
public has to take a look at. Was there actually a knowledge on
the part of Mr. Donolo that Mr. Macintosh was to do this in order
to deflect Mr. Milewski off the case, who after all was a most
troublesome person for the Prime Minister?
It is clear that this is very high stakes poker for the Prime
Minister. It is very clear because, as I just presented in my
question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General,
the Prime Minister is not only represented by Canada's chief
crown prosecutor who has flown at public expense from Ottawa to
Vancouver to protect the Prime Minister.
He is also there aided by two Vancouver lawyers of some repute.
Apparently they were concerned that perhaps this was not enough
cover for the government's—the Prime Minister's—position, so
they have now dispatched Mr. David Scott, QC, from Ottawa to
Vancouver, a jurist of high repute. It is reported that his
normal billing time would be in the range of $350 an hour. We
have Mr. Whitehall, the chief crown prosecutor for Canada, we
have two assistants and we have a $350 an hour lawyer protecting
the Prime Minister.
1100
The case I have cited of how they managed to use the system in a
grossly adversarial way, perhaps even in connection between Mr.
Donolo and Mr. Macintosh to get Mr. Milewski off the case is as
clear an example as I can give the Canadian public of what this
issue of lack of funding means.
On the issue of going forward with setting a precedent, the
precedent has been set. Take a look at the number of inquiries
where people, complainants, coming to inquiries have been funded.
The only reason why this particular case is in the hands of the
public complaints commission as opposed to an independent inquiry
is part of the cover-up in the first place.
What is going on here is that the solicitor general has seen to
it that the power remains in the hands of the Prime Minister and
the government. The solicitor general has shamelessly acted and
continues to act as a cover for the Prime Minister rather than
doing his job as the chief advocate for the people of Canada in
his role as the Solicitor General of Canada.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was listening earlier to the NDP movers of the
motion and now to the Reform. What is interesting to observe is
that they had focused in their argumentation to a large extent on
the very crucial issue before the commission itself, allegations
I submit in respect of the commission that they had alleged on
the floor of the House of Commons. Those are the very
allegations that the commission will determine in its wisdom,
whether they are based on solid ground and therefore relevant to
the discussion of funding.
The public commission is almost like the Winnipeg police
commission, almost like the unemployment insurance commission,
almost like the CPP tribunal, the veterans appeal board, the
workmen compensation board or the labour board in a province.
They are quasi-judicial tribunals. When citizens with grievances
against the bureaucracy of government come before these
tribunals, I have not heard from the NDP in the House, from the
Reform Party in the House, from the Tory party in the House or
from the Bloc in the House whether those citizens with grievances
have a right to legal representation.
I have appeared before these tribunals. The one distinction
that we must make is that quasi-judicial tribunals, as the RCMP
public complaints commission is, were created by parliament
precisely to avoid the need for the formality of a knowledge of
the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure. In other
words, citizens without full legal knowledge can appear before
them and could even have representations of laymen. Therefore I
ask where is the precedent being created?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the
member was not in the House, either that or he had ear plugs,
when I made my presentation.
The fact is it is the Prime Minister, the solicitor general, the
justice minister, the Liberal government that have made this a
political process, an adversarial process.
1105
Count it. There are over $2,000 an hour of legal fees either
protecting the RCMP or protecting the Prime Minister in this
process.
I cite again my example where with very high skill level the
solicitor for the RCMP managed to twist the comments of the
protester, of the complainant, and furthermore took documents
that should never have been used. Had he a properly prepared
lawyer on his behalf, Mr. Jones would never have seen those
documents end up in the public record.
I saw what actually happened. Mr. Macintosh was asking Mr.
Jones questions on the basis of the Jones-Milewski documentation.
After he got Mr. Milewski's name into the record a couple of
times he very quickly folded like a cheap deck of cards and sat
down on that issue. He did not pursue it any further in spite of
the fact that he had buck an unprepared Mr. Arvay. I say with the
greatest respect unprepared because he does not have funding and
did not have time to prepare himself.
Mr. Arvay was trying to stop the irrelevant insertion of these
documents into the court proceedings. What the RCMP lawyer did by
introducing that, I submit again, was to get Milewski off the
case and the Prime Minister without the terrier on his ankle.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
somebody over on the Liberal side asked what about Mr. Considine.
Mr. Considine is the independent counsel to the commission and
while he may be able to intervene to defend some witnesses
against overly aggressive cross examination, he does not have a
role to vigorously cross examine witnesses from the Prime
Minister's office, from the RCMP and elsewhere. That is not his
role. That is the role for counsel for the students.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, in this case Mr. Considine
did not have time to look at these documents to determine
relevance. He handed them over to Mr. Macintosh with Mr. Jones'
approval on the assumption Mr. Macintosh was going to determine
relevance himself. Mr. Macintosh did not only not determine
relevance but he used documents in the case against Mr. Milewski,
thereby tainting the whole news gathering process. I believe he
did it—
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): 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.
1110
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.
1115
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.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very glad to have heard the remarks from the member from the
Bloc. It was a very reasonable and balanced position and there
is nothing I could not concur with in his remarks.
I draw special attention to one point regarding our trading with
certain countries and the longstanding position of our government
making the argument that we have an obligation to carry on trade
relationships with some of these countries even though their
human rights records are very poor because that will help to
elevate the standards of their human rights circumstances.
Obviously what we have seen in the APEC summit was that we are
harmonizing our human rights standards but we are harmonizing to
the lowest common denominator. We are being pulled down to their
level of human rights conditions.
I was at the APEC summit, as were the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, the member for Vancouver East and the member
for Yukon. All of us managed to avoid being pepper sprayed that
day but certainly we can speak from personal experience that if
this is the type of harmonization that takes place it speaks to
the larger issue of the globalization of capital. I would be
interested in hearing the member expand on that thought.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: 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.
1120
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I will make my comments and questions short. I want
to also commend the member. He spoke very eloquently and is
rapidly making a name for himself in the House as a defender of
human rights.
My question is to the member as a lawyer who has appeared in a
courtroom and has taken part in the adversarial process that can
occur in a courtroom. I would like to give the member the
opportunity to voice an opinion on what he feels will be the
outcome of an inquiry where we have students. I have had the
benefit of seeing these students on television but I have not
been to the inquiry personally.
Where is the fairness in having these students representing
themselves, their ability to effectively cross examine government
witnesses, to effectively put forward arguments against the
trained legal team assembled by the government and this process
that has been undertaken? How can these students effectively
rebut the case that is going to be presented by these government
lawyers?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: 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.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this debate and to
follow previous speakers who have very accurately and
articulately, on the opposition side at least, put forward an
argument as to why this government should be reconsidering its
position.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative
caucus to the motion that has been brought forward by the member
for Winnipeg—Transcona, my counterpart within the NDP caucus as
its House leader and a respected parliamentarian.
This motion, it is fair to say, is a very worthwhile measure.
It is a motion that deserves the support of all hon. members
regardless of political affiliation. This motion touches on
basic human issues of fairness and equity and we in the
Progressive Conservative Party support this motion.
I commend the member for Winnipeg—Transcona for bringing this
forward at this time. It is a very timely intervention and it is
certainly an issue all Canadians are very concerned with, for we
in this Chamber and we outside this Chamber should be truth
seekers first and foremost, not the hiders of truth.
Unfortunately there are many who would castigate parliament and
parliamentarians for just that and if we are to rebut those
feelings among the general population we should be starting
today.
A former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and a
former prime minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, was a
passionate defender of human rights in Canada and around the
world. Under Mr. Diefenbaker's government Canada proclaimed the
Canadian Bill of Rights and although the bill of rights has been
superseded in many ways by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms entrenched in our Constitution in 1982, it continues.
In that original bill of rights there was a phrase which I
suggest calls upon us to reflect today: “I am a Canadian, free
to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to
stand for what I think is right and free to oppose what I believe
is wrong”.
John Diefenbaker described these principles as the heritage of
freedom. Sadly, Canada's heritage of freedom seems to have been
forgotten by the current government both in the months, weeks and
days leading up to and including last November's APEC summit and
in the summit's aftermath leading up to today.
The RCMP public complaints commission is presently investigating
the RCMP's use of pepper spray and force on student protesters at
the APEC summit. I have raised serious objections to the limits
of the commission's mandate and with the appropriateness of this
particular body's conducting an independent review of the entire
APEC affair.
I suggest adamantly that the mandate itself does not include the
ability for this commission to go into the area of political
interference.
1125
I nonetheless recognize that the commission should be as arm's
length as possible from government, that it must be fair and
treat all witnesses and potential witnesses in a just and
equitable fashion. Yet there is no fairness in a commission in
which some witnesses and some participants have access to legal
representation paid for by the Canadian taxpayer while other
witnesses do not. This is not a level playing field. Justice as
represented by the scales we so often see is not a balanced
approach.
Canadians who believe in fairness for all recognize this very
basic principle. I find it difficult to believe that no one in
this Chamber would recognize it. The public complaints
commission recognizes the principle and wrote to the solicitor
general twice to seek federal funding to cover the costs incurred
by the students.
We have heard members of the government, in particular the
solicitor general and the Prime Minister, time and time again
tell us in the opposition and Canadians to have faith in the
process, to let the commission do its work. They say the
government believes this commission will get to the truth.
The commission has twice requested funding for these students.
Once again we see this government exercising very restricted
hearing, selective hearing. It hears what it wants and it says
what it wants. The solicitor general has refused this request
twice. He said no. I quote the Liberal government's own talking
points in response to last Friday's decision. This government has
expressed confidence in the commission yet it expresses no
confidence in the commission's judgment in requesting funding for
the students.
It is very perverse. I find it deeply disturbing that the Prime
Minister, the solicitor general and the government were able to
express so much faith in this commission and its judgment until
the time the commission requested funding for the students. It
is a convenient double standards that undermines an already
precarious process.
The APEC double standards are not new to the Liberal government.
It was this solicitor general who stood in the House and who in
response to questions from the opposition repeatedly told
parliament that the commission would not suffer from any
political interference. The solicitor general then turned around
and spoke freely in a public place about APEC without any regret
or responsibility, none whatsoever. That was the first breach of
his oath to office but not his last. Let us remember the issue of
political interference by this government casts a very long
shadow on the commission's consideration of whether the RCMP was
justified in its use of pepper spray.
The gild is off the lily and the sheen is gone from the Prime
Minister and this government. How can this government remove the
stench of political interference when it uses taxpayer dollars to
provide legal representation to every organization or person
under its authority but gives nothing to the students, the
alleged victims in this case? The students did not intentionally
seek to have their lawyers in this public complaints commission
process. One of the lawyers initially filed a motion early in
the process to keep lawyers out of the inquiry and to maintain
the commission's mandate as a non-adversarial fact finding body.
Again I am quoting from Liberal talking points.
Did the government support this motion? No. It objected
strenuously and demanded that lawyers be allowed to intervene on
behalf of the commission's participants. I guess those
participants did not include the complainants. The government in
essence threw down the gauntlet at that point. Any claim that
this was not an adversarial process had to be thrown out the
window with that. The government has turned around and refused
the same support for legal representation for students on two
occasions.
Is there a single Liberal member of parliament who can pull his
or her eyes from the prepackaged talking points and explain to
Canadians why some commission participants get tax funded lawyers
while other participants get nothing? It is completely perverse
and indefensible.
1130
Instead of quoting these talking points, Liberal members would
be well advised to remember the words of a former Liberal member
of parliament and a former minister of justice, the hon. Ron
Basford, who spoke eloquently at this weekend's Liberal Party
meeting in British Columbia.
He said that surely we believe in the right to protest, the
right to speak out and the right to be defended and that the best
way to get to the facts in this inquiry where all people are
represented is to put the facts forward and test them through
vigorous cross-examination. Obviously that includes having
students represented by proper legally trained minds.
Meanwhile I am unable to locate a line anywhere in these Liberal
talking points that would explain how providing lawyers for some
while depriving lawyers for others ensures a non-adversarial fact
finding body.
For the Liberals to sit in the House and say this is fairness is
like the commissioner of baseball saying that the New York
Yankees and the Montreal Expos can fairly compete against each
other regardless of a $60 million gap in players salaries.
Perhaps this is something that the current solicitor general can
understand. The government has given one-sided resources to
defend its interest before the commission while providing nothing
to exclusively defend the other.
The Prime Minister has a taxpayer funded lawyer while the
students do not. That is very curious, given the fact that the
Prime Minister is not summoned, is not on the witness list and
has indicated his reluctance to appear before the commission. Yet
he has government funded layers there representing his interests.
For a process to be truly non-adversarial there must be a degree
of commonality in the resources available to participants. The
Liberals persist in contending that the government can fund
lawyers for some but not for others and maintain a
non-adversarial process. As soon as there was government
insistence on having lawyers there the non-adversarial nature was
gone.
In Canada we believe in legal equality for all, not special
privileges for the government's chosen few. Good Liberals have
been rewarded, will faithfully follow the talking points and will
no doubt say that it is the government's role in the commission
to protect the interest of the complainants. However, without
those lawyers it is unable to do so.
In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to support the
motion brought forward by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
This is the place and the time we should be debating this issue
if Canadians are to have confidence in the process.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member alleged—and I believe he is a
lawyer—that only the presence of lawyers in commissions like
this one could ensure the resolution of the facts, could ensure
the facts are established. Were we to accept that conclusion and
the logic of the member who has just spoken, we would have to
conclude that all previous grievances before the other
quasi-judicial tribunals before which citizens did not have
lawyers did not arrive at the truth.
In all modesty I have appeared before such tribunals and I say
that quasi-judicial tribunals that do not need lawyers for
representation of citizens have seen to it that the resolution of
the facts, the search for the truth, was ensured. Therefore I
have extreme reservation about the presumption of the member who
has just spoken that only the presence of legally trained
minds—and I have a son who is a lawyer—would ensure arrival at
the truth.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the logic of the question
and the premise are completely lost on me because that is not
what I am saying at all. I am saying if it is to be a level
playing field we cannot have one side represented and the other
side not represented. Within my remarks the House will find a
reference to the fact that it was the students who first put
forward the premise that perhaps there should be no lawyers
involved.
I am guilty of being a lawyer and I do not for a moment suggest
that the process cannot work without the presence of lawyers.
What the process cannot do, if it is to be equitable, if it is to
be fair, is stack one counsel table with trained legal minds and
not the other. As the member for Charlesbourg indicated, members
of the bar in Vancouver who have extensive legal experience as
counsel are sitting at one table and the students are sitting on
the other side of the room, at an empty counsel table, unable to
articulate themselves in the same way and with the same vigorous
legal training as on the government side. It is absolutely
perverse to suggest otherwise.
To stand here and defend the indefensible is further proof that
the members of the backbench of that party are becoming nothing
more than whipped dogs.
1135
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to ask a question of the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. For the most part I concur with
his comments.
Another member asked whether it was only with the presence of
lawyers that we could have some kind of justice, at which point
my response was to have the government pull its own lawyers from
the commission. Then, with the RCMP lawyers gone as well, we
would have a level playing field.
I direct a question to the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who is a lawyer, as I am, as was
my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke earlier.
Would he agree that my experience reflects his in the courtroom,
that people who are not represented, whether it is in court or
before a quasi-judicial body, are often at a great disadvantage?
They do not understand the rules of evidence. They do not
understand the maxims that often apply to administrative
tribunals.
Most members in the House have dealt with constituents who were
trying to get Canada pension plan disability payments and have
had to deal with social assistance boards. Would he indicate
that his experience is like mine and reflects the inability of
people to understand the process without legal counsel?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments
are on all fours with mine. The process itself can be
intimidating and overwhelming for members of the public. That is
why lawyers are often called upon to intervene. That is not to
say that it is any reflection upon people's intelligence or
ability to defend themselves. They are in an atmosphere that has
certain rules and precedents that have been set down in years
previous.
We are talking about a system of equity, justice and fairness.
Judges when crafting a sentence will look at a person's ability
to express remorse. That is what has been completely lacking on
the government side, a feeling of remorse and an admission that
something was done inappropriately.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I am
rising to speak in favour of our party's opposition day motion
that the complainants, namely the students appearing before the
RCMP Public Complaints Commission, be provided with separately
funded legal representation. Before I get into the substance of
my remarks, I will be sharing my time with the leader of our
party, the member for Halifax.
As has been noted by previous speakers in the debate today, what
was done last November was not done for reasons of security but
because the Prime Minister wanted to spare President Suharto, a
dictator from Indonesia, any embarrassment while he was visiting
Vancouver at the APEC summit meeting. As a result dozens of
people were arrested, mainly students, and police may have
interfered with the human rights of hundreds of those
individuals.
Professor Pue, a professor of legal history at UBC, has said
that if these principles can be clearly violated then the
political use of police forces to harass journalists, political
opponents and other inconvenient individuals is no longer
unthinkable. A very slippery slope lies between the APEC
protesters and the rest of us.
As an aside, I go back to what happened two weeks ago today on
the question of privilege concerning the solicitor general to say
that in my brief tenure here it was the most shameful moment I
have witnessed in the House of Commons.
The solicitor general stood in his place to categorically deny
and to be personally offended at what I had overheard him saying
to the gentleman who turned out to be Mr. Toole from Saint John,
New Brunswick.
1140
I can understand why on the day that the questions were raised
there might have been some doubt and some uncertainty in the mind
of the solicitor general. Upon reflection, upon sleeping on the
matter and then getting up to essentially deny, deny, deny is
unconscionable, and people over there talk about ethics in this
matter.
With respect, what kind of message does that send to our young
people? Does it not say they should just keep refuting the story
and have all their friends stand up and applaud what they are
saying? If they say it long enough and loud enough, the world
will move on and talk about other issues. It is a great message
for my children's generation or for any generation, for that
matter.
Let me read into the record one of the many letters I have
received. This one is actually an e-mail from a business person
in Toronto who said “In the real world if I talked about a
client, their business, my firm's relationship with that client,
or if any other aspect of my firm's business and was overheard in
public, the following would happen. I would be barely back in my
office when I would be summoned to report to the CEO and be
promptly fired on the spot. This would occur without opportunity
to appeal, rebut or waste my partner's time with an explanation.
It is in the voters (shareholders) best interest to have no
tolerance policies when it comes to breaches such as the one you
uncovered. With all due respect, only in politics or public life
do serious indiscretions in conduct and judgment go
undisciplined. Unfortunately this reflects poorly on the
political process in democracies such as Canada and the United
States. Members' credibility as effective and trusted managers
of the public purse is once again challenged ultimately to the
detriment of the constituencies they represent”.
I would add that the solicitor general's actions or lack thereof
not only reflect poorly on him but on all of us. Had he done the
right thing and offered his resignation, it could have elevated
our collective miserable reputations.
The solicitor general has been saying that he is not prejudging,
that he has not prejudged the public complaints commission.
Hypothetically let us suppose that we have a real, genuine
hearing in Vancouver, that the students are funded legally, and
at the end of the day the commission reports that in its opinion
four or five RCMP officers acted with excessive force during a
five minute period and recommends that Staff Sergeant Hugh
Stewart take the fall, be disciplined or be dismissed from the
force.
How can the solicitor general stand in his place and say that he
has not prejudged the inquiry? That is exactly what he told Mr.
Toole on the infamous flight on October 1. I believe I was doing
my duty to bring that public discussion and debate forward in the
Chamber.
If the solicitor general is careless in what he says in
public—not only did he not say it in the House but admonished
others not to say it, not to prejudge—I would have been derelict
in my duty not to have brought it forward. His utterings were
highly irresponsible on that flight but I ask the House not to
take my word for it.
Let us listen to Patrick Monahan who teaches law at Osgoode
Hall. I am sorry the member for Willowdale is not here. He was
a former policy adviser to that member's brother, Ontario Premier
David Peterson. Patrick Monahan said “I don't see how the
solicitor general can maintain that this was a private
conversation. Certainly he seemed to be discussing private
matters, but the issue is that it was taking place in a public
place. An airline certainly is public in the sense that there
are people sitting visibly in the area where you are speaking so
your conversation can be overheard”.
He goes on to talk about the member for Palliser not acting in a
deceptive way whatsoever. He said “He was simply sitting on
the airplane immediately adjacent to where the solicitor general
was sitting so he was sitting in full view and listening. He was
not using any kind of special hearing device to pick up the
conversation. To allege that there is anything improper about
taking notes about a conversation, there is no basis to that”.
1145
John Grace, the government's own former privacy commissioner,
said that “an airplane is a public place and when a public
figure in a public place begins to talk about public issues
within earshot of others he or she should expect that others will
listen”.
Today's motion simply asks that the government provide separate
funded legal representation for the complainants at the APEC
inquiry. I think that most Canadians listening to this debate or
following this story basically cannot believe that this has not
been automatic on the part of the government. It very much
appears to any fair-minded observer that the government has
deprived these young people of their basic human right to protest
peacefully in order to cosy up to the Suhartos of the world. Then
it turns around and denies those individuals legal assistance to
help them get adequate representation. It is truly a David and
Goliath story that we are witnessing.
It is a shameful incident in this country. The Liberal cabinet
knows it, the Liberal back bench knows it, the solicitor general
knows it perhaps better than most of us, and I think the Canadian
public instinctively and intuitively knows it.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments. I know
that on a personal level he became very embroiled in this entire
matter and unfortunately suffered the slings and arrows of the
spin doctors on the government side of the House in their
attempts to deflect, throw up smoke screens and detract from the
greater issue here.
I would like the hon. member to tell us his feelings on the
appropriateness of the solicitor general and the Prime Minister,
who may become the focal point of this inquiry on the issue of
political interference, being tasked or given the discretion to
fund the accusers, and the appropriateness then of those persons
who may suffer from the public exposure given to the students at
the inquiry and the appropriateness of those persons who become
the focus in deciding whether those students should be given
funding for lawyers.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I think that one of two
things should happen. Either the students themselves should
receive adequate legal representation or, as has been suggested
earlier, we should remove the lawyers from the other side, or
sides as the case may be, so that it is a level playing field.
It has strange credulity when the Public Complaints Commission,
the commission that the solicitor general has so much faith in
and wants it to go ahead and do its work, has asked twice
publicly for funding for the students appearing before the
inquiry and the government then turns around and denies that
request from the Public Complaints Commission. It just does not
add up.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member for Palliser attentively. I do
not want to get into all of the details of his supposed recording
of the minister's comments on the plane, but I would like to deal
with one specific part of the so-called written transcript.
Apparently the minister said something about this RCMP officer
looking a bit excessive. We have watched the CBC treatment of
the pepper spraying 1,000 times. Would that not be just sort of
a natural, common sense reaction of any member in this House of
Commons if he saw that clip on television? Did it not seem that
the RCMP used a little—
An hon. member: He is the Solicitor General of Canada.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: It is common sense. I put that
question to the hon. member.
1150
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, if the member for
Broadview—Greenwood, the member for Palliser, the member for
Winnipeg Centre or almost anyone else here had said that, it
would have been a fair comment and it would not have been worthy
of recording or reporting. However, when it is the solicitor
general of the country who is, in effect, prejudging the outcome
of the APEC inquiry four days before the inquiry even begins,
then it certainly is outside the bounds of decency and good
taste.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
motion that we are debating today is about the fundamental
requirement that those of modest economic status be able to hold
those of wealth, influence and position to account for their
actions and their conduct. It is about something very dear to
Canadians: justice. It is about something as simple as
fairness. It is about asking the government to do something that
should be second nature, namely, ensuring fair treatment for
those seeking to uphold rights; rights to freedom of expression,
assembly and protest; rights which together constitute the most
sacred tenets of democracy.
I urge hon. members opposite to reflect carefully on the
significance of this motion before they succumb to their whips'
orders.
[Translation]
We are asking the federal government to provide specific
financial assistance to allow the complainants before the
commission to benefit from legal assistance. Such a request was
made twice to the solicitor general by the commissioners, but
was rejected both times.
This is a bad decision, a decision that goes against public
opinion and that is very unfair.
[English]
The refusal of the Prime Minister and solicitor general to
establish a level legal playing field will render the findings of
the commission suspect. It will also erode Canadians' confidence
in the public complaints process. The decision goes against the
grain of widely held public opinion and flatly contradicts the
weight of opinion in the legal community.
Once again the government has chosen to let short term political
expediency obstruct its view of the right and just thing to do.
It is a self-interested decision that will not go unnoticed, but
Canadians will be the arbiters of that. It certainly has not
been ignored by others. The public commission itself, Federal
Court Judge Barbara Reed, the Law Society of British Columbia,
the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, former Solicitor
General Warren Allmand, the Liberal MP for Vancouver Quadra and
the B.C. Liberal Party have all called for the government to
reverse its decision and do the right thing.
The arguments in favour of funding legal representation are
clear and persuasive.
First, there is a clear case of conflict of interest. The Prime
Minister and the solicitor general have a manifest stake in the
commission's findings. This means that they should not be in the
position of deciding whether the student complainants receive
financial assistance.
[Translation]
Because of his comments, the solicitor general is in a conflict
of interest situation. Everyone in the country can see that,
except him and the Prime Minister.
Second, the tough cross-examinations conducted by government
lawyers clearly demonstrate that the complainants need the help
of a lawyer. To think otherwise is to be naive.
[English]
To imply that the commission counsel, Mr. Considine, can
represent the interests of one of the parties is to seriously
misunderstand his role.
1155
Furthermore, only professional litigators can hope to get at the
truth from government and RCMP witnesses.
The Prime Minister said yesterday in this House that the
students have nothing personally at stake here. He is dead
wrong.
Let me cite the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's
submission to the solicitor general:
Such hearings have the capacity to inflict substantial injury on
the reputations of everyone who participates. Damaged
reputations, of course, are frequently accompanied by a plethora
of unhappy consequences. That being the case, elementary justice
requires that the complainants, as well as the officers, have
recourse to government-funded counsel.
Recent high priced additions to the Prime Minister's legal team
suggest that he is more than a little concerned about damage to
his own reputation.
The Law Society of British Columbia has urged the solicitor
general to recognize that:
An essential principle of a democratic government is that all
people are equal before the law, and are entitled to fairness and
due process. The complainants appearing before the Commission
are acting as representatives of the public interest. That they
should have to do so without legal representation is contrary to
the principles of justice and equality to which we, as a
democratic country, aspire. If equality before the law is to
have any meaning, equality of legal resources is needed.
In her decision, Federal Court Judge Barbara Reed makes the very
same argument. She wrote:
—when decision-makers have before them one party who is
represented by conscientious, experienced and highly competent
counsel—they prefer that the opposite party be on a similar
footing. They prefer that one party not be unrepresented. An
equality in representation usually makes for easier and better
decision-making.
Precedents exist from other tribunals and inquiries in recent
Canadian history. The Grange inquiry into deaths at Sick
Children's Hospital in Toronto and the Alaska pipeline inquiry
both included funding for aggrieved parties to the dispute. I
would submit that the APEC affair is no different.
Justice doit être faite. This House has a moral obligation to
see to it that justice is done.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I want to commend the hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party for her comments, as well as all of those who participated.
As one member of this House of Commons I wonder really what is
going on in the minds of Canadians when they reflect upon this
APEC situation. How can they understand that the Prime Minister
and the solicitor general will not provide legal counsel for
those students?
How can anyone have faith with the whole process? How can
anyone have faith in us as parliamentarians when we see a
government take action such as it did against the former chairman
of the fisheries and oceans committee and against the member for
Vancouver Quadra who basically spoke the opinions of Canadians?
Polling shows that what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra
said is really the wishes of Canadians and the wishes of the
students, that legal counsel be provided.
I ask the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party how she thinks
Canadians view this situation. How can they have faith in the
legal system of this country? How can they have faith in the
operations of this very parliament when the Prime Minister and
the solicitor general have denied a basic right to those
students?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question.
It is not an exaggeration to say that this is a dark moment in
Canada's history. If the only problem resulting from the APEC
fiasco and the government's disastrous handling of the APEC
fiasco was an erosion of confidence in the Liberal government, in
the federal government, then we would be hypocrites to be
rubbing our hands with concern and saying “Is that not a
terrible thing?”
But let us be clear that what is so deadly serious about the
government's mishandling of this matter is that it shakes the
confidence of Canadians in our justice system. That is what is
so very very serious.
1200
In addition to that, I can speak for my own constituents and I
can speak for people from all across the country with whom I have
been talking and from whom I have been hearing. I know my
colleagues in my caucus are finding the same thing, that
overwhelmingly Canadians understand that the justice system
depends upon two very important things. One is the impeccable
impartiality of the solicitor general. It has been demonstrated
that that impartiality does not exist with the current solicitor
general as evidenced by his mishandling of this matter. The other
is that the justice system depends upon there being legal
representation available to parties who are appearing before such
an inquiry. That goes to the very heart of our justice system.
The fact that the government feels completely warranted to
overrule, to reject the pleadings of the public complaints
commission in itself is astounding. The commission is saying
that this process cannot work and justice cannot be done unless
the Government of Canada responds to the representations for
legal council. Yet the Prime Minister and the solicitor general
have completely refused to acknowledge the conflict of interest
which they are in by overruling the recommendations of the
commission.
I have already referred in my comments to the long list of legal
experts and judicial figures who have expressed their support on
the side of the argument for legal representation. That is the
motion which is before the House. I think it is going to be a
test of whether there is any sense of justice and decency left,
at least on the backbenches of the Liberal government.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
you know the respect that I hold for all members of the House,
members of the opposition. It is one of the strong points in our
parliamentary system that we live and work in an atmosphere of
mutual respect.
Members will allow me then to celebrate the 30th anniversary of
the glorious revolution of 1968 that brought Pierre Trudeau to
power by citing one of his best aphorisms. He was referring to
Lord Acton that power corrupts. He then said “but absence of
power corrupts absolutely”. He was using this as a way of
distinguishing the different roles of government and opposition
MPs. It is the duty of the opposition to attack a government. It
is the duty of the government to seek solutions. It sometimes
means in the pursuit of the opposition role that we get some very
strange combinations.
I am reminded of a reverse image of the biblical gathering at
the cave of the Adullamites, a strange collection that brings
together all four opposition parties in spite of the
disparateness of their ideology, and one might even say their
personalities and their conception of life. But there it is, an
unholy alliance is there. I do not denigrate the motives or the
contributions made by opposition members. I would simply say to
three of the opposition parties, welcome aboard.
It is true the NDP raised this issue on November 25. I thought I
was the first; I raised it on December 1, 1997, but I am happy to
have the correction. It seems to me the other three opposition
parties joined in only a few weeks ago, which is an interesting
fact.
Mr. Speaker, I neglected to say that I am sharing my time with
the hon. member for Mississauga West, a very honourable member.
To get on to this issue, the role of government MPs is basically
an issue of problem solving and producing solutions. I have had
certain experience in this area. Sometimes in Canadian politics
the problem solving role appears to be more difficult and complex
than it was in negotiating with the Russians during the cold war.
But there it is. We have interesting and diverse personalities.
Our role has always been to make sure that the issues involved
which I saw on television in the APEC meeting at UBC are debated
fully, that the constitutional issues and the possible collision
of constitutional values are properly heard.
1205
There is in fact a certain antinomy. The 1973 treaty on
protection of visiting heads of government codifies customary
international law. It is the fourth in a series of
anti-terrorism treaties, in respect to two earlier ones of which
I was the chairman rapporteur of an international commission that
did the drafting. But there is also the matter of the charter of
rights, the right to free speech, which includes the right even
of objection to visiting foreign dignitaries. How to make the
balance is what we have been referring to.
In my first communication with the solicitor general I urged the
convening of this RCMP complaints commission not because it
necessarily is the best of all commissions but it is the one
available, it is there. That is the first point. When the issue
of the commission being created was established, I raised the
funding issue. I have a series of communications which I will
deposit in the National Archives. Mr. Speaker, you will be around
30 years from now and will be able to read them with great
pleasure and enjoyment. I have maintained that point.
Let me bring us to the events of the last several weeks when the
solicitor general advised that in interpreting his office he
could not make funds available for individuals appearing before
the commission other than the RCMP officers. When the solicitor
general raised that issue, I and others began exploring other
alternatives.
One of the questions raised was could the commission itself in
its discretion use its powers and its funds to fill gaps, lacunae
in the legal argumentation. That has taken a good deal of time
and a good deal of work and it is an ongoing process. I am able
to assure the House that in communications with the government,
it has been established that there is the extra supplementary
budget, $650,000. It is in the commissioners' discretion to use
those funds.
It has been suggested that there are legal objections or
obstacles in the way of the commission. One of the issues raised
is there is a legal opinion by a professor, there is a ruling by
a government agency and there is an opinion by an unnamed
government official in the justice ministry. These are not, I
would say from my own experience as a royal commissioner,
insuperable obstacles. In fact I do not think they are
substantial.
I have had the advantage of talking at length with the gentleman
referred to earlier in this debate, the hon. Ron Basford who was
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. We believe
those objections could be overcome.
Basically I think the ball is now in the commissioners' court.
It is for them to make the judgment.
I was able to attend one day of the commission's hearings in
Vancouver. I myself felt that the role of the commission was
more muted than it should have been. Frankly I felt that the
commissioners might have interrupted the examination or
cross-examination. It seemed to me it got into the very issues I
am talking about, the 1973 treaty and the balance with the
charter of rights. That is the sort of issue in my judgment in
which the commissioners could decide that they need supplemental
legal argument and if I were they, I think I would do so.
In other words we are saying that funds are available. There is
a discretion there. My own inquiries establish in my mind that
there will be no blocking to their initiatives and there will be
co-operation in removing legal articles.
In a communication to the government, I had originally suggested
that a special supplementary grant be made. I suggested $50,000
to $100,000 which was in no way intended to be a cap. But I am
also worried about fees for lawyers. In France at administrative
tribunals no one is entitled to a lawyer. That makes it simpler
and less expensive.
I am assured again that there is not a cap, that in other words
it is open to the commission to ask for more funds.
1210
Two of the three commissioners are young and they struck me as
decent, honourable people. If they seize the initiative, they
can make sure that substantive justice is done to all people
involved. This has involved a good deal of work for a number of
people on the government side. It is quiet work that gets no
headlines. It is not the sort of thing that can turn a phrase in
a newspaper editorial but it is part of my responsibility as a
government member to exhaust all possibilities.
I place more expectations in the civil litigation pending before
the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Because of the backlog of
court business, there are delays in when that will come to court.
It has been the policy of the justice ministry to fund ordinary
private litigation where substantive constitutional policy issues
arise. Why should the taxpayer not fund private litigants when
they carry the burden of making in effect constitutional law? It
is constitutional law in motion. In the logic of events, the case
for funding of the civil litigation is very clear.
It is often forgotten that the charter of rights rests on what
Dicey called the common law rights of Englishmen. Today we would
say of Englishmen and Englishwomen. It is also in the American
bill of rights. These are decisions of individual courts in
individual concrete cases. In Dicey's view the constitution is
not the source of the rights but the consequence of the rights as
defined in litigation. In civil litigation before the courts, I
would have the expectation of a definitive ruling. The case for
funding there is very strong. I would be very surprised if it
does not occur.
In the meantime with the limited mandate of the commission, my
advice to the commissioners is to exercise more control over
counsel. They are entitled to. They should also exercise their
discretion. If they feel they need more light on the legal
issues, fund it and let others set up the legal objections.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with care to the member for Vancouver
Quadra. It is unfortunate that he did not listen with the same
care to the members of his own party in British Columbia who
voted overwhelmingly this past weekend at their convention, the
BC federal Liberal Party convention, to urge the government to
provide funding.
I will put a very specific question to the member. He has an
opportunity now to stand up and be counted on this issue, to
stand up for his constituents. He does represent UBC.
I suggest with respect that the member is misleading this House.
I am sure it is inadvertent. He is misleading this House when he
says that the commission has the discretion to use the funding it
has been given, including the $650,000, to fund legal assistance
for the students. He talked about various legal opinions.
However, the member for Vancouver Quadra did not talk about the
fact that Madam Justice Barbara Reed of the Federal Court of
Canada specifically said that the commission has no jurisdiction
to provide one cent of funding for those students. I quote from
the commission—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have to keep
going.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, let us make some
corrections. I was at the Whistler meeting. I spoke to Ron
Basford. I spoke to the students. I discussed this operational
problem solving strategy and they agreed. The member does not
know. He was not there.
On the issue of funding, let us face it. Once one gives a press
conference as the hon. member did yesterday, and says that the
object of this resolution is to put government members on the
spot, what is this being turned into? A political game? Do not
play politics. Do not go after cheap newspaper headlines. I
work on solving the problems. The hon. member does not.
I understand the limits of the opposition role and of the
government role, but I wish we would take this seriously and go
to the gut issue of getting the funding.
1215
An hon. member: What about the federal court.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: You are the last person to bend the
knee to an obiter dictum by one judge. If you have had a good
constitutional law course, and I know have, you would know these
issues are open—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind all hon.
members to address each other through the Chair.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is apparent to me that the hon. member
from across the way has not shown respect for the member for
Burnaby—Douglas. It is not a question of who his professor was.
Maybe the hon. member from across the way thinks he is above all
of us.
He has the opportunity tonight to represent the people of his
constituency, to represent the B.C. wing of the Liberal party,
and he has the ability to represent the common and decent thing
to do here. Is the hon. member going to support this motion when
it comes up for a vote tonight, yes or no?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, may I accept the
challenge and simply say to the hon. member that it is good to
have her on board on this issue to speak on civil liberties. I
have not heard much from her side of the House on this point
until now.
I fought for this since December 1997. The hon. member has not.
So let us get down to the substance. On this particular issue
she has joined the gathering at the cave of the Adullamites, the
unholy alliance. Let us cease playing political games. I want
funding for students. She is there for the headlines.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is very sad to see what has happened here when an
honourable and distinguished member has abandoned his earlier
courageous position. I did not hear a clear answer on the last
question posed.
It is also said that the backbench would abandon this man's
ethics by letting him stand alone in his courageous position.
Is the hon. member prepared to defend or to be loyal to the
Prime Minister and the government ahead of his loyalty to
Canadians?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the lesson has been lost.
The hon. member is one of the most promising of the opposition
people but unless and until you understand that the role is to
get results, not to make the cheap debating points, we are not
doing much service to the House. The issue here is the funding.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we hear chirping that that was a poor answer. The answer was
bang on. I find it particularly interesting to have the member
for Burnaby—Douglas say in this House, Mr. Speaker allowed it to
stand on the record, that the former speaker was misleading this
House. I did not think that was appropriate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I listened very
carefully to the debate and very carefully to the words of the
member for Burnaby—Douglas. The implication in his words as
interpreted by me are not reflected in what the member just said.
So we have a difference of opinion.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Then I suspect, Mr. Speaker, you will
be just as generous in interpreting what I am about to say
because there are very clearly some people misleading the
Canadian public on this issue.
The hon. member just spoke about this being a political game. It
is absolutely clear that is exactly what this is. To see the the
unholy alliance lining up is really quite remarkable.
I refer to November 1985 when the member for Burnaby—Douglas
described Bill C-65, which established the public complaints
commission, as taking us out of the dark ages. Those are his
words. Today that same member is trying to marginalize the
public complaints commission. He is trying to suggest that in
some obscure way this commission is unfair. It is clearly
remarkable to see members opposite, lawyers opposite, standing up
and simply fighting for money for lawyers.
1220
The young lawyer who represented the students and who walked out
with them claimed that he had fees in excess of $80,000. I would
like to see the dockets. I would like to examine the billings.
What is going on here? This is not a court of law. The members
opposite know that.
The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party made reference to
the fact that inquiries in the past had intervener funding
provided. She used the example of the Dubin inquiry. Let us
talk about that. Canadians know what that was. That was the
alleged Ben Johnson affair, the investigation into the use of
drugs by athletes. There were accusations. There were charges.
The inquiry is named after Chief Justice Dubin. He sat in a
judicial inquiry role. He had people who were accused of
breaking the law come before him. Of course there would be legal
representation for someone who was accused of breaking the law.
This is not a judicial inquiry. The Canadian public understands
that, in spite of the nonsense and the rhetoric that goes on
around here about their poor rights being taken away.
It is amazing to see members from the Reform Party stand up as
great champions of human rights. It is really quite remarkable.
This is the party that has repeatedly told this government to get
rid of the court challenges program. It has called for that.
The question which should be on the minds of Canadians,
recognizing the the court challenges program provides assistance
to people involved in a court procedure, not simply a commission,
is how can this party claim that there is no need to provide
legal funding for disadvantaged individuals and groups involved
in actual litigation and now turn around and claim that we need
special funding for a public complaints commission.
What is the commission? This public complaints commission was
set up to receive complaints from the public about the actions of
the RCMP. Members know that. But it is in the interests of the
members in the opposition to try to mark up the Prime Minister or
the government. The proof that this is a political game and a
political football is here. If we look at the photograph in the
Toronto Star Thursday, October 15, under the headline
“Students quit APEC inquiry”, the byline says: “Stage Walkout:
Two members of the Raging Grannies lead APEC demonstrators
Jonathan Oppenheim and Garth Mullins out of RCMP commission
hearings in Vancouver yesterday”. If we look carefully at the
photograph we see behind one of the students the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas. Was he advising these students? Was he
counselling them?
The Reform member does not seem to get the point. The difference
quite clearly is that this is politically staged. He is
virtually walking out arm and arm with the students. He is
giving them advice. He is encouraging them to leave. Then he
gets the grannies to walk out in front. It is a wonderful photo
op. Do they think the Canadian people are stupid? They can see
what is going on. They can see that they are abusing the system
attempting to create some issue. It is scandal envy. They sees
the press and the Republicans.
The Reform Party gets all its advice and policies from south of
the border. We all know that. It sees the scandal, the media
attention and everything going on with President Clinton.
Reformers imagine getting the Prime Minister subpoenaed to appear
in front of a commission. They want to twist this around to try
to create some kind of false sense of scandal.
1225
Should we simply believe that rhetoric or perhaps would it be
more appropriate to believe the latest witness reported in the
media who came to the commission? This is University of British
Columbia Professor Chris Gallagher. Should we believe him? He
said: “It seems there was no other alternative. From my
perspective it appeared that pepper spray was used where it had
to be”.
I do not know if Gallagher is right. What we want to see happen
here is have the public complaints commission do its job. This
is not a court of law. This is not a judicial inquiry. The
students have been charged with nothing. We are not talking
about their legal rights being in jeopardy. They are witnesses.
They have been asked to come forward and tell this commission,
duly established by parliament in 1986, in their own words and
based on their memory what happened.
Mr. Gallagher who was a witness within 45 meters of the actual
events describes how a fence was torn down and students were
clamouring to get over the fence. He goes on to describe how
there was no punching, no kicking and no physical activity in the
sense of hitting any of these demonstrators. They used pepper
spray. I do not know if it is appropriate to use this. I am not
a commissioner on the complaints commission.
However, the feeding frenzy that is going on over here is
totally laughable. If the opposition had any idea how foolish it
looks in attempting to portray this as some kind of White House,
oval office scandal, it is absolute nonsense.
This commission has integrity and an international reputation
for fairness and for examining the issues. It has paid counsel
available to advise and to ensure that witnesses are not
intimidated and that their rights are protected.
I submit to this House and to the Canadian people that what we
see here is purely opposition politics, tactics that perhaps I am
not totally unfamiliar with having spent time in opposition in
the Ontario legislature, but based on absolute nonsense and no
facts. Let the commission do its job.
I reiterate that these students are not before a judge, not
before a court of law and not in jeopardy of being charged for
having their legal rights violated in any way whatsoever.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is nice to know that rhetoric has not died. We have the king
of rhetoric over here from Mississauga West. If he thinks this
is laughable, I am sorry but it is not laughable. This is an
attack on the very rights that we expect to enjoy in Canada, the
freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the freedom of
expression, all of which are being suppressed.
Let me get right to the point. The commission was set up to
examine complaints against the RCMP. The commission has an
excellent reputation. The three commissioners right now are
doing their level best to do their job and I admire their
tenacity but this is the wrong venue. The is the wrong venue to
be taking a look at the political interference and connection
that has been clearly established between the Prime Minister, the
Prime Minister's office and the police of this country. That is
what the question is.
This commission, with all its great reputation, does not have
the ability or the resources to get to the bottom of the
question. Why does he not admit that?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, how about the Reform
member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby who claimed that
the court challenges program I referred to “only serves as a
taxpayer supported platform for radical feminists, the gay and
lesbian agenda and other social engineering groups”.
Does the member feel the same way about providing taxpayer
supporter lawyers to every complainant who comes before the
complaints commission?
Canadians know that the Reform Party's posturing on
constitutional rights is nothing more than an attempt to score
false political points.
They know that this party called to have the charter of rights
abolished. I do not know why I always wind up with quotes from
the member for Wild Rose. He said on January 17 in the Calgary
Herald “we should scrap the whole thing”. That is their
idea of protecting civil rights. The issue is not laughable,
they are.
1230
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with great interest to the member. I have two
questions which are fairly straightforward, things he ought to be
able to answer.
He says he just wants to have the public complaints commission
do its job. The public complaints commission has instructed its
counsel to request from the solicitor general funds for legal
representation for the students.
Would the member encourage the solicitor general to do that in
allowing the commission to get on with its job? If his answer to
that is no, he has gone on to say that this is not a judicial
inquiry or a court room, they are not before a judge and they do
not need lawyers. If that is the logic I ask him if he would
instruct his caucus colleagues to suggest that the government
withdraw its own lawyers and answer the question why they need
them if the students do not.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I will give a very direct
answer. The only people in jeopardy of being charged with
anything are RCMP members. They are the only people who are
being investigated, examined and whose conduct at the APEC
hearing is being questioned. Not one of the students is under
any cloud or suspicion of wrongdoing. Not one of them requires
legal protection to prevent a charge from occurring.
In a democracy when someone in the law enforcement business is
being challenged, accused of wrongdoing or is subject to
potential criminal activity or criminal charges down the road, I
would have assumed that members opposite would be concerned about
protecting their rights. This would happen at any level of
policing and I would have thought Reformers of all people would
have supported this.
The only rights the opposition wants to protect is its rights to
make this an issue that does not exist. The students do not need
legal counsel. The RCMP may if the findings of the commission
lead to some kind of criminal charge.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to talk about the issue and problem the students have in
Vancouver.
I was there for four days of the APEC meetings and know what the
security was like and the situation was on the ground. I would
like to take my time today to quote largely from a student at
UBC, a teacher in my constituency who was there on the front line
of the whole issue.
He has taught English at Lindsay Thurber high school since 1986.
He has taught at Red Deer College, at UBC, and at the University
of Hawaii. He has a bachelor of education with distinction from
the University of Calgary and a masters degree from the
University of Victoria. He was the Rotary international
ambassador of goodwill from my home Rotary Club in the University
of Hawaii for a year. He is now a Ph.D. candidate at the
University of British Columbia. His area of special interest is
social justice in education.
He was at this event. He was part of it. He was there
throughout the whole thing, the preparation, the weeks and months
prior to APEC. The kind of person he is tells it all. He served
as a board member of the Alberta multiculturalism commission. He
is the vice-president of the Alberta association of multicultural
education, among a number of other distinguished positions he
holds in the community.
1235
In 1987 Darren spearheaded an action group in our community of
students and teachers opposing prejudice, a group known as STOP.
This became a model for students across Canada and through the
U.S.
In 1998 he received the race relations award from the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities and in 1993 he received the Canadian
student rights achievement award from the league for human rights
of B'Nai Brith Canada.
In 1996 he received a Reader's Digest national leadership in
education award and in 1987 he won the Alberta human rights
award.
This gentleman is married, has two small children and was a
student at this assembly. This was not some kind of kook who was
there as a rebel, as we so often hear described in this House by
people who obviously have not taken time to even look at the
issue.
This is his experience and I think this might tell the House
more than anything else. He wrote:
Last November I witnessed a disturbing spectacle that has shaken
my faith—in this country.
As a resident of student housing at the University of British
Columbia, however, the upcoming meeting took on a more ominous tone as
November 25 drew nearer. At random intervals throughout the day
and night thundering military helicopters made low passes over
the treed peninsula.
A groundswell of public discontent was rising, as fair minded
people began to question how the Prime Minister could ignore
basic human rights.
Many UBC scholars and students spoke out against APEC and our
welcoming leaders notorious for brutality against their own
citizens. The protest rally being planned for the meeting day
was taking shape as an important display of the democratic right
to free expression. But what transpired would tarnish a campus,
the police forces involved, a government and its leader.
A vibrant, almost festive tone characterized the early stages
of the protest; activists performed skits and speeches and the
Raging Grannies sang—.Meanwhile, stiff plainclothes
officials milled through the crowd, some taking pictures,
others talking into headsets, as choppers whirred
overhead.
The march toward the meeting area gained momentum with more
chants and songs, and the crowd grew to nearly 2,000 peaceful
protesters by the time we reached the approved protest zone.
I think this says it all:
I froze as I noticed sharp-shooters surveying the crowd from atop
the nearby Chan Centre for the Performing Arts. At the graduate
student building, the Tibet flag, a silent reminder of one brutal
Chinese campaign of genocide, was removed by RCMP “on special
orders”.
Barking police attack dogs intimidated those near the front,
and city police officers in cycling shorts used their
bicycles as battering rams to keep protesters back from the fence
after it came loose.
Suddenly and without warming, RCMP officers began emptying
dozens of fire extinguisher-sized canisters of pepper spray into
the eyes of those nearest to the front. Random chance determined
that I and my colleagues from the faculty of education were
spared an agonizing attack, while many around us winced in pain.
[The Prime Minister] may say he puts it on his plate, but this ostensibly
harmless “pepper” is known to have caused at least 60 deaths in
the past seven years in the U.S.—
He quotes the source of that statistic.
He goes on to talk about how at Green College, a place for high
academics, the very best from the world attending, they had signs
in their windows that were removed by the police saying such
offensive things as free speech and democracy.
Now we have to look at this whole situation. We have to look at
how the government has treated this whole affair. In our foreign
affairs committee, because the Prime Minister and the foreign
affairs minister will not show up at the hearings and will not
tell how it really was, we asked that they appear there. Even one
Liberal spoke in favour of that. The hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra was removed from committee the next day. That is how the
government responded to that.
1240
The next week a motion came that we should fund these students
because we had a David and Goliath affair going on here. It is
fine for the Prime Minister to stand up and say Mr. Considine can
handle that whole thing. But there is no way that one man can be
expected, no matter how good he is, to handle the affairs of
these students and to give them a level playing field against all
of these government lawyers. No matter what anybody says in the
House, the public now knows how the government abused these
students and their complaints.
Whether they are right or wrong is not the question. The point
is they are Canadians. They were not treated in a Canadian
manner. The government did not give us pride in our country and
we are embarrassed for the way it treated these students.
Very simply, I believe this motion is speaking to the very issue
of free speech and of right of assembly. The Prime Minister, in
his joking way about baseball bats, pepper steaks and pepper on
his plate, is insulting all of us as Canadians. He should be
embarrassed and he should be chastised by his own caucus for his
embarrassing performance that Canadians have to witness day after
day on television.
I think Canadians are now seeing the sort of person he really
is. He really is that guy who will choke somebody. He really is
that guy who will have a soapstone under his bed to bash somebody
on the head. He really is that kind of person.
The truth hurts. Members across the floor obviously do not like
to hear this because they are liberal minded, they care about
human rights and they care about people. They are obviously
demonstrating that they have none of those features.
I failed to mention at the start that I will be sharing my time
and another member will be picking up from here.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
there is an old saying that if a person wants to be their own
lawyer they have a fool for a client, speaking to the idea that
no one should go into a forum like that without representation.
There is an even more pertinent point in law which says that a
person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences
of his or her actions.
I raise this now because I would like to hear the hon. member's
views on this. Could it be that the probable consequences of
denying representation to the students are that the government
does not want the message to come out? It does not truly want to
reach the truth or the bottom of this whole story, where these
orders really came from or if there was political interference
into the police force of the country. Could it be we have people
who are deliberately trying to avoid getting to the truth by
doing just as we fear, denying representation and advocacy for
those students, the predictable consequences we are well aware
of?
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a question
that if the hon. member had more time he would say more
about. That is just the point.
I watched the Somalia inquiry and watched how it was planned.
The planned thing was to carry on these long extensive hearings,
to shoot any messengers who happened to come forward who might
want to testify and give the truth, to go after the media and
blame the media for some aspects and to then go on to try to
single out some of the lower guys in the chain of command, find
an RCMP officer, find a private somewhere and go after him and
pummel him and make him look like the victim. Then the other
tactic is to draw it out as long as we can so that fatigue itself
destroys the whole honesty of the process.
1245
I hope Canadians will get tired of this approach. I hope they
will not accept the fact that two or three RCMP officers will be
expected to take the fall at the end of the inquiry. Meanwhile,
the guys who organized it at the top get off scot-free. They
have gone through that process one too many times and are about
ready to pay the price.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the
debate this morning. It upset me to hear some of the comments
from government members. They do not seem to understand the
concern of Canadians. I have heard the excuses. I have heard the
comments that it is not a court situation, that it is a
semi-judicial body. To an extent they are right. The public
complaints commission is a semi-judicial body with commissioners
that has been set up to find out whether there is any merit in
the complaint.
The government has used the excuse that it is an informal
process. The question from the opposition side has been that if
it is an informal process then why does the government need to
have its lawyers there. If the government has decided that it
requires legal advice and legal presence at the commission, how
can it possibly justify not having the students represented by
lawyers to make sure that their representation is given a fair
hearing?
I have heard comments that students are not being charged with
anything. Neither is the RCMP at this time. The commission is
not mandated to sanction or impose penalties. That is not the
commission's role.
If the commission finds that perhaps there is basis for the
students' complaint and if the RCMP decides to take it one step
further and discipline members of the RCMP, there will be a
separate hearing, a separate process, at which time they will
have legal counsel. However, if the process is strictly an
informal one, there is no justification for the government to
bring on its lawyers.
Another issue I would like to raise is the question of fairness.
I have heard from constituents. One of them is a colleague of
the member for Vancouver Quadra. Some of them do not necessarily
agree with the students' protest. They do not necessarily agree
with the manner in which it was held, but they feel that the
public commission process must be fair. Even if they do not
agree with the students in their initial protest, they do agree
that if lawyers are there for the government side, paid by
taxpayers, there should be lawyers there for the students, also
paid by taxpayers.
Why? It is not because they agree with the issue or with the
students' position but because they believe in the Canadian
democratic society there is the question of fairness and
equality. If it is fair for the government to have taxpayer
funded lawyers then it is also fair for the students to have the
same consideration.
I wonder how government members would feel if, Mr. Speaker, you
decided that one day only the opposition would be allowed to
debate a bill and that the government would not be heard. I
wonder how they would feel if only one side of the issue was
given the ability to represent one side of the story. I am sure
they would not feel that was a fair and proper representation of
democracy.
1250
Canadians expect that in a public complaints commission both
sides will have equal opportunity to present their positions so
that a non-biased group can make a decision based on the
information put before it. No Canadian feels that in this case
it is an equal playing field.
Let me just share with the House and with Canadians who happen
to be watching who supports taxpayer funding for the students,
who feels that this is not a level playing field and is not fair.
The public complaints commission feels that the students should
have some funding from the government. All opposition parties in
the House feel that the students are justified in having some
support. Citizens from coast to coast, even though they are not
part of the whole APEC scene that happened in Vancouver, feel
that the students should have some legal representation paid by
the taxpayer. Last but not least, the B.C. wing of the Liberal
Party of Canada voted at its weekend meeting for the government
to provide funds. Even federal Liberal members in British
Columbia feel that it is not fair.
It would appear to me that the only people who do not seem to
recognize the unfairness of students trying to represent
themselves when the government has overloaded itself with lawyers
are the Liberal members who sit on the other side of the House.
There will be an opportunity later this afternoon for government
members to do the right thing, to recognize that Canada is a
great democracy simply because we recognize the freedom of our
citizens to express themselves publicly. The government does not
have control to the extent that some dictatorships have over
their people. Canada is not a Tiananmen Square type of
government.
Sometimes we on this side of the House wonder in what direction
the government is taking our country. As I was saying, at the
end of this afternoon government members will have an opportunity
to do the right thing and to support Canadian democracy. They
will have an opportunity to say that we need to make sure we
protect democracy by maintaining a level playing field and by
giving both sides of the debate equal opportunity to represent
their sides of the question.
I hope they will do the right thing and will support the request
through the motion to provide legal funds for the students so
that they have the same opportunity as the government members,
the Prime Minister's Office and the RCMP to present their side of
this debate in a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, one
thing we have been hearing from the Liberals on the other side,
not only today but in previous interviews, is that they believe
the commissioners in the inquiry already have the authority to
use some of their money to hire lawyers for the students. This
seems to be contravened by Madam Justice Reed of the federal
court who ruled that this was not the case, and we do not believe
it to be true.
Would the member care to comment on the practicality of having
the commissioners simply use some of their resources to hire
lawyers for the students? Does she see that as a possible
option?
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. It is quite clear that the commission will be
stretched for financial resources for its own needs without even
contemplating paying legal fees for the students.
The court has made a ruling on that.
Unless that ruling is appealed it does not really allow
flexibility for the commission to use its very tight resources to
pay lawyers fees for the students.
1255
It also undermines the commitment the federal government needs
to make in the fairness of the process. It has been suggested by
other colleagues of mine on the opposition side that if the
federal government were really concerned about fairness and not
prepared to use taxpayers' funds to fund a student, in that
acceptance of fairness it should take its lawyers out of the
courtroom.
The lawyers are not required. The process can function quite
well without them. It would at least give the appearance to
Canadians that the government accepts the concept of fairness,
equality and justice being served.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for the last
few minutes talk about freedom of our citizens and democracy in
our great country. She also mentioned that only one party in the
House did not believe in equality or equal opportunity for the
students in the inquiry.
We have been listening to jokes about pepper spray on plates and
pepper steaks from the government side, particularly from the
Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that students
are lucky the RCMP is not using baseball bats.
Does the hon. member think this is a display of arrogance by the
Prime Minister? Is the Prime Minister disrespectful of
Canadians? Is the government removed from Canadians and not
listening to them or understanding them? What does the hon.
member think about this arrogance and the jokes?
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I would be the last
person to try to justify what the Prime Minister says publicly.
It is only one more example of the arrogance shown by the
government of the day and by the Prime Minister's caucus.
Today's debate has been a real eye opener as far as the lack of
respect for somebody else's opinion is concerned. Whether we
agree with these students is not the issue. The issue is a fair
hearing so the public complaints commission can decide whether or
not the students complaint was justified.
The concern of the opposition right from the beginning is that
this process, this public complaints commission, may not have
been the vehicle to have investigated the involvement of the
Prime Minister's Office and the government in police activities.
We were assured by the government that the public complaints
commission would be able to do the job. Now we see interference,
if in no other way, by a heavy barrage of government lawyers
manipulating the process.
This shows the arrogance and the lack of appreciation of the
government of the desire of Canadians to get to the bottom of
this matter, find out the truth and make sure the process is fair
and equitable.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Scarborough East.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate the issue
surrounding APEC and the civilian oversight, and I do so on
behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.
Having served for 10 years on the Waterloo Regional Police
Service and as chairman, I know firsthand about the importance of
our police and what they represent for all Canadians. The police
in Canada are highly respected. There is no question that in
order to maintain that level of respect we must have the ability
to address concerns about police conduct, especially where we
feel we have not been treated fairly.
Civilian oversight bodies such as the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission do precisely that. Civilian oversight is a time
honoured principle in democratic societies. It provides needed
objectivity and credibility to investigate police conduct.
Police officers work in difficult circumstances.
The task of ensuring Canadians remain safe in their homes and on
their streets can be very complicated. It is a task we believe
police carry out with dignity and with fairness.
1300
There are times when police must use the force necessary to
apprehend criminals or to prevent tragedy. Canadians expect
police to do exactly that. There are times however when the use
of force is drawn into question. The ability to question any
perceived wrongdoing makes up a fundamental component of our
criminal justice system and indeed of our human rights as a
nation.
The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is an independent agency
which was established in 1986 to investigate complaints from the
public about the conduct of RCMP members. At that time Canada
was a forerunner in creating the agency which was hailed as a
significant step forward in support of democratic rights as we
know them. We have seen a range of review agencies emerge over
the years from local police service boards to provincial
complaint bodies. Civilian oversight mechanisms now exist in
almost all jurisdictions in Canada. All of these organizations
have provided the necessary checks and balances of independent
civilian oversight and effective review. That is important to
note.
I will take a moment to review the role of the RCMP Public
Complaints Commission. The PCC is an independent body and not
part of the RCMP. It is an administrative tribunal created by
parliament in 1986 to protect the public with an efficient
independent mechanism with all needed powers to consider
complaints against the RCMP. The PCC acts in the public interest
both to protect human rights and to protect RCMP officers from
groundless accusations of improper conduct. The legislation
establishing the commission provides for a chair, a vice-chair
and up to 27 other members from across Canada. The PCC has been
in existence for over 10 years. Over that time it has become
known nationally and internationally for its fairness and
integrity.
I also want to review the mandate of the RCMP PCC. It is not a
decision making body. It makes recommendations to the
commissioner of the RCMP concerning complaints from members of
the public. It makes recommendations for improvements to RCMP
practices to the commissioner and the solicitor general, the
minister responsible for the RCMP.
Each year the RCMP receives about 2,600 complaints from the
public, most of which are resolved satisfactorily without input
from that commission. Each year the PCC receives approximately
1,000 complaints from the public regarding the RCMP.
While other countries may have different structures for civilian
oversight, most are built upon fundamental principles of
fairness, equality, equity and independence. I am firmly
convinced that civilian oversight can only be successful in an
atmosphere of mutual respect, co-operation and understanding of
each other's views and roles. The public complaints commission
has moved successfully in that direction since its inception.
The competing demands of our society make it even more necessary
for police, our communities and government to continually look at
how we can do things better. Policing the police is a phrase we
often hear to describe the need for monitoring police services
and conduct. There is no question that we need that monitoring
in order to maintain the high level of confidence that Canadians
rightfully have in their police. One way to help us do that in
law enforcement is through civilian oversight. It is an
effective mechanism to help make our law enforcement system even
better.
At this time I want to review the specific mandate of the PCC
panel that is looking into APEC. The chair of the PCC
established a public interest hearing on February 20, 1998 to
look into: events that took place during or in connection with
demonstrations during the APEC conference in Vancouver between
November 23 and November 27, 1997; whether the conduct of RCMP
members involved in the events was appropriate to the
circumstances; and whether the conduct of RCMP members involved
in the events was consistent with respect to the fundamental
freedoms guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
I also briefly want to review the provisions of funding to
complainants before the panel looking into APEC.
1305
The public complaints commission was created by parliament to
act in the public interest in relation to complaints by the
public against the RCMP. I want to note that the PCC hearing
process is fair to all participants and is not a trial. The
government does not need to ensure counsel are provided for
complainants. The PCC will ensure that there is no abuse of
cross-examination of witnesses and that all relevant issues will
be brought before the panel and will be examined thoroughly. It
will also enable the panel to address thoroughly and fairly all
aspects of the hearing. In order to do this the government has
provided the PCC with an additional $650,000 and in response to
its request, that money is now flowing.
It is important to note that it has the authority to investigate
complaints independently. Witnesses can be called for example,
and reports and other documents can be subpoenaed. Once the
examination is complete, a report is provided to the solicitor
general and to the complainant.
Policing is everybody's business, everybody in Canada. Without
effective community relations, police work is hindered. Crimes
may not be reported and witnesses may not come forward.
[Translation]
Canada is a country envied by many around the world, and the
Canadian government will continue to look after the interests of
all Canadians.
[English]
It is very important that communities have confidence in their
police forces. Police officers are accountable to the
communities they serve and rightfully so. That is why it is
essential that we respect the process of the review mechanisms
currently in place. It is essential that there be an independent
and an arm's length relationship between communities, police and
governments.
I believe that we have that independence in the public
complaints commission. I also believe it is incumbent on all of
us to respect that commission's process. We do so in order to
get to the truth and to all the facts as we know them. That is
what I believe Canadians want. I also believe it ultimately will
serve us well in order to get to the truth.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the hon. member. I
think the comments he makes about the police in this country are
important.
I agree with him that the job of the police and the RCMP is
difficult. They have to exercise great care in making difficult
judgments. Clearly the RCMP are answerable to Canadians through
things such as the public complaints commission. If Canadians do
not have faith in the process of this commission because there is
not a level playing field or even if that perception is
there—and I think the evidence in this debate is that it
is—even if the process exonerates the members of the RCMP, is it
not then unfair to those members of the RCMP to have them come
out of a public inquiry that already appears to be tainted?
Would it not go further to help the interests of those police
members if the students were given independent legal counsel so
that if the public complaints commission found that there was no
wrongdoing, then that finding may well be beyond reproach?
However, to leave it on an unlevel playing field as it currently
is will surely prejudice any outcome, thereby harming the RCMP
members themselves.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I happen to believe that
we do have a fair process in place. I happen to believe that the
truth will emerge through this process. It seems to me that over
time we will see the facts come out.
When I was chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police many a time
I had to bite my lip and swallow very hard as we initially saw
the one side come forward. We had to patiently wait until we
could get our side out and allow our facts to emerge.
Canadians will be able to decide and view very carefully all the
facts as they see them. They will be able to judge and judge
properly. The process is one that is intact.
It is there for all Canadians and it is one that ultimately
protects us in the best interests of this great country of ours.
1310
I reject totally and outright the notion that somehow by funding
these people we would have something more fair in place. The
whole purpose of a public complaints commission is to allow
ordinary people to come forward and tell their side of the story
and to get their facts and information out and to be heard in an
objective fashion. That seems to fall on deaf ears as far as the
NDP opposition is concerned. It does not seem to understand that
the public complaints commission is there for a very precise
purpose. That precise purpose is to get at the truth. We will
see precisely that happen.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member has been questioned by the member opposite
about whether or not there is a level playing field.
Would the member who has the floor now not agree that this
public complaints commission, which was established by parliament
and has been in place for 10 years, has had a very level playing
field for the 10 years? Perhaps the member might wish to
speculate on what, if at all, the non-level playing field has
been for the last 10 years. Is there not an ombudsman role here
with a very level playing field for complainants and has it not
been functioning well for 10 years?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question.
Our public complaints commission is known internationally in
terms of the kinds of work that it does. As the member points
out, it provides a level playing field.
We are fortunate in this great country of ours to have these
kinds of processes in place that benefit all of us and ultimately
protect all of us in the best interests of truth and justice.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise today and speak on this issue.
I would like to refocus the debate on the motion at hand which
says in part that the government provide separate funded legal
representation for complainants at the inquiry.
Some members of the House and some of the complainants appearing
before the PCC panel in Vancouver have complained and the media
has demanded that legal fees for the complainants at the APEC
hearing be paid. They say that it is unfair for the government
to fund counsel for its own officials and for the RCMP members
but to deny it to the complainants.
When addressing the issue of funding for complainants, it is
important to remember why the PCC was created by parliament. It
was created by parliament just so that these complaints can be
dealt with in a fair and open process. It was created in 1986.
The member for Burnaby—Douglas is quoted as saying that it takes
us out of the dark ages. With that I agree.
Since its creation it has developed an international reputation
for fairness. It is a proper dispute resolution process. It is
observably impartial. It is not adversarial. I would argue that
it is a far better forum to resolve a dispute of this kind than
is this House. This is not the place to conduct a trial.
When the question of providing funding for complainants first
came before the PCC panel, it noted that it could not read into
its enabling legislation this responsibility. The PCC chose to
seek guidance on the question of providing funding for
complainants from the Federal Court of Canada.
In her decision of July 20, Madam Justice Reed noted:
It seems reasonably clear that the commission does not have such
authority. This follows in large measure from the terms of
subsection 45.45(13) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Act—. That subsection provides for payment by the commission of
certain expenses incurred by complainants in certain
circumstances. The payment of legal fees to allow them to be
represented by counsel before the commission is not among these.
The presence of authority to pay for some expenses with an
absence of authority to pay for legal fees leads to the
conclusion, by implication, the commission does not have the
authority to pay for the latter. In addition, the authority to
pay amounts from the public purse is usually not a power that
exists unless expressly conferred.
1315
It is clear, as the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has stated,
that the Commission has no jurisdiction and no authority to fund
the complainants. Madam Justice Reed suggested in her decision
that a panel could choose to recommend that the government
provide funding for the complainants' counsel. The panel did
approach the government regarding the granting of funding and the
solicitor general, after serious and careful consideration,
turned down that request.
In his letter to the panel the solicitor general said that the
government is of the view that the panel can address all the
complaints before it in an open and thorough manner without need
for the government to provide funding for legal counsel for the
complainants.
The PCC is already vested with broad authority. It can, under
the terms of the RCMP Act, do the following: Summons any person
before the board and require the person to give oral or written
evidence under oath and produce such documents and things under
the person's control as the board deems requisite to the full
investigation and consideration of the matter.
I remind members opposite that there are no limits on who can
receive a summons. To summons any person includes any member of
the government, including the solicitor general and the Prime
Minister. There are no limits on the availability of witnesses
to the commission.
In addition, it can administer oaths. It can receive and
accept, on affidavit or otherwise, such evidence and other
information as the board sees fit, whether or not such evidence
or information is or would be admissible in a court of law. The
rules of admissibility are waived. Therefore, this can be far
beyond the limitations that are imposed upon a court by the rules
of admissibility and materiality.
It also specifies that any person whose conduct or affairs are
being investigated by a board of inquiry or who satisfies a board
of inquiry that the person has a substantial and a direct
interest in the matter before the board shall be afforded a full
and ample opportunity, in person or by counsel or by
representative, to present evidence and make representations as
needed. I would respectfully suggest to members opposite that
the media have questioned the role of the government and that
that, in and of itself, is sufficient reason for the government
to retain counsel.
Therefore, it is clear that the complainants have considerable
leeway to make their own views known. In this they will be
assisted by counsel of the panel who has explained publicly that,
in accordance with the PCC mandate, all efforts are being made to
ensure that relevant evidence is heard by the panel and that
unrepresented participants at the hearing shall be comfortable
with the process.
May I suggest to the member for Burnaby—Douglas that if he goes
to the Sparks Street mall today and is assaulted, the accusation
will be dealt with in a court of law. It will be processed
through the court of law by a crown attorney. It will be subject
to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be limits on the
evidence that can be presented; limits on materiality and
relevance. He will be vigorously cross-examined by a defence
lawyer.
If, however, the same member has a complaint about the police in
the same incident, he will be accorded a hearing before the
commission. He will be afforded commission counsel, two
additional counsel and three additional investigators. Evidence
will be allowed that would never be allowed in a court of law and
he will be able to state his complaint freely and fully.
It is ridiculous to suggest that a person who is a victim of an
assault should receive independent counsel. It is equally
ridiculous to submit that a complainant to a process such as this
also have independent counsel.
The commission counsel will take all participants through the
evidence. They will be asked in advance of and after their
cross-examination if there is anything else they wish to bring to
the attention of the panel. If so, the participants will then be
given another opportunity to speak.
1320
I would suggest that this honourable House is, in some respect,
missing the point by focusing on this motion.
The first point is that there has been no comment on the tragedy
befalling ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. There has also been no
comment upon Canada's role and relationship with countries that
routinely abuse human rights.
The opposition wants to talk about pepper spray, but the
government wants to talk about its proper relationship in these
deep and troubling circumstances.
I would suggest to hon. members that they reject this motion.
This is not a motion that is appropriate. There will be a full
and fair hearing. The rules of evidence are wide open and there
will be a full and complete hearing of this matter.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I guess it is pretty much acknowledged, at least on this
side of the House, that the government has a problem with a level
playing field when it comes to a lot of issues.
We can compare APEC with a lot of issues where there is a lot of
unfairness and where there is no level playing field. If we look
at what is happening with students, when it comes to
post-secondary education, there is no level playing field. There
are students who can afford post-secondary education and there
are students who cannot afford it.
There are women involved in the pay equity issue. I would be
very concerned if anybody in here would disagree that there is
certainly not a level playing field when it comes to the pay
equity issue that both the Conservative government and the
Liberal government have refused to settle.
Women are being attacked by employment insurance changes which
are forcing them back into the kitchen with no income. They are
being forced to stay at home, sometimes facing violence. They no
longer have an income.
These are all decisions being taken by this Liberal government.
One would almost think that we have a government that wants to
silence Canadians.
We know that the students were picked up and thrown into jail,
but nobody was charged. Why were the students were not charged?
Why were they thrown into jail and treated like criminals when no
charges were laid?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that particular
question would be addressed by the commission itself.
I want to speak to the issue of the level playing field.
I cannot, under the circumstances, imagine a more structurally
level playing field. First, a complainant is just that, a
complainant. The complainant is not accused of anything. Their
liberties are not at risk. A complainant has a complaint about a
police officer or the police. They are then afforded an
opportunity to bring forward that complaint to a panel. The
panel is able to waive normal rules of evidence and listen to
that complaint in full. Even after the complaint they will be
asked if there is anything else that the complainant would like
to speak about.
When they bring forward a complaint about police officers or a
complaint about any other matter, they will be subject to an
examination by government counsel and by RCMP counsel because the
person is complaining about the behaviour and the careers of
these particular individuals and they have every right to be very
careful in their response to the complaint.
1325
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member on the
government side about fair process and a level playing field. I
am having a real hard time with that, considering that we are
talking about students and big government. It certainly is not a
level playing field. Big government, once again, qualified for
legal aid and the students, who have enormous debts, did not.
The member said that he has difficulties because we are not
talking about problems in other countries such as China. Is he
suggesting to the House that we should speak of these other
things and not speak of our home country, and our own students
who were affected by this debacle?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I will speak to that
issue. What the students were concerned about were human rights
abuses in Indonesia. On that issue all government members are
on the same page with the students. There is terrible abuse of
human rights and it is something about which all members should
be legitimately concerned.
But what the debate has focused on is the trivia, the
irrelevance of the issue. Talking about getting our priorities
out of whack, this is a clear statement of priorities that are
completely out of whack.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will share
my time with the hon. member for Laval East.
I rise in this House today to speak on a motion of utmost
importance. It is a matter of equity, justice and freedom in the
face of the arrogance and cynicism of a Liberal government that
will stop at nothing to please a foreign dictator.
The motion before us today is simple. It asks that the
government allocate sufficient, separate funding to the students
repressed by police to ensure fair and equitable legal
representation.
So far, in debating this motion, we have gone over every
connection between the Prime Minister's Office and the pepper
spray used to repress students peacefully demonstrating against
the presence of Indonesian dictator Suharto at the APEC summit
held in Vancouver, in November 1997.
Previous speakers also noted the Prime Minister's arrogance in
pointing out every move made by his office to hide his real
involvement in the repression of students campaigning for the
right to speak.
That is why I will be speaking today about how crucial the vote
on this motion, following this debate, will be. In point of
fact, this vote will show how far the Prime Minister is prepared
to go to crush any dissidence on the part of Liberal members who
may have been in favour of ensuring fair and equitable
representation for students subjected to repression.
I would tell the hon. members across the way, who have been
deprived of their most basic right to free speech, just as the
students were before them, that they should thank their lucky
stars they have a civilized Prime Minister. There is one thing
they can be sure of, that the leader will not use a baseball bat
to make them toe the line.
Unfortunately, the Liberal members have every reason to be
afraid of their leader today, if they heed their consciences and
vote in favour of equity and freedom of expression. They need
only look at what happened to their colleague from Vancouver
Quadra, who was forced to keep quiet after commenting that the
RCMP Public Complaints Commission could not cast full light on
what had happened at the APEC summit.
If this is not enough to convince them there is no freedom of
speech left within their party, they just need to recall what
happened during the vote on financial compensation for all
Hepatitis C victims.
At that time the Liberal MPs, who had always come out in favour
of full compensation, were forced to vote against their
consciences.
If that is not enough, they can also hark back to when female
Liberal MPs were forced to keep silent when this government
broke its promise and refused to obey the Human Rights
Tribunal's decision on wage equity. That time it was their turn
to get the prime ministerial pepper treatment.
1330
The Prime Minister does not draw the line at just restricting
freedom of speech on the streets of Vancouver or within his own
caucus; he also goes after journalists.
Last week, in fact, the PMO tried to intimidate all journalists
by unjustly attacking the reputation of one of their number.
His office wrote an unjustified, and unjustifiable, complaint
against an eminent CBC reporter, wasting no time in making sure
the complaint was widely known so anyone who had not yet got the
message would understand the price to be paid for telling the
truth about the Prime Minister.
This is further evidence that the Prime Minister is prepared to
do anything to impose his view of things, even to the point of
accusing a journalist of lacking objectivity, when the
journalist in question won a Gemini award for the quality of his
work on the dubious events surrounding the APEC summit.
From now on, no one can talk of isolated facts. Repeatedly, the
Prime Minister has acted to threaten the freedom of expression
of those who do not think as he does. He uses cayenne pepper if
he wants the RCMP to repress young students, threats when he
wants to muzzle the members of his party and official complaints
when he wants to intimidate journalists.
There is no longer any doubt about the attitude of this old
politician at the end of his career.
This is why he is today denying the students who were victims of
the RCMP repression access to fair legal defence against the
police and his government, which have a battery of lawyers and
communications experts who are being paid out of the public
purse.
In addition to denying basic legal aid to the students, the
Prime Minister keeps making jokes about the repression they
faced. Yesterday, he was back at it and pointed out to them
that they were lucky they were peppered with cayenne instead of
being beaten with a baseball bat. He even tried to calm the
students by saying that the RCMP carried towels to wipe away the
effects of the cayenne pepper.
However, intimidation, threats and arrogance are unacceptable,
and it will not take the Prime Minister long to discover that.
A big organization like the CBC was able to dismiss the Prime
Minister's threats by standing behind the integrity and
objectivity of its journalists.
The Prime Minister has learned it is difficult to destroy the
credibility of a person with the means to defend himself. This
is why he will do all in his power to deny the students the
public funds that will give them fair representation before the
battery of lawyers defending him and the police at our expense.
All of the opposition members are prepared to provide this
financial help to the students so this entire matter may come to
light.
I solemnly appeal to the members of the Liberal Party today to
liberate themselves once and for all from the attitude of their
leader and to vote according to their conscience.
I appeal especially to the Liberal members from British
Columbia, who already gave their support for funding to the
students, but who may well remain silent today in the face of
the thinly veiled threats of the Prime Minister.
These members should rise and vote in favour of the most
elementary justice. It is time they set the example for all who
still believe in freedom of expression and for their Prime
Minister, who has yet to understand that this freedom underlies
our democratic system.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I would like to thank my Bloc Quebecois colleague
for his speech. I think he gave a very good description of what
is going on in this country.
As I mentioned earlier, he drew a very apt comparison with the
pay equity situation, which shows once again that this
government is refusing to recognize the human rights tribunal.
What is more, in 1992 the Prime Minister promised Mrs. Wry in
writing before she died that he would honour the decisions of
the human rights tribunal. Then he went back on his word.
1335
This is a frequent occurrence. The incident with the students
in Vancouver is not the only example. We have seen it happen
throughout the country.
The Liberal government seems to want to muzzle Canadians. Would
my colleague agree with me that the Prime Minister perhaps had
his reasons for wanting to keep Mr. Suharto happy?
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for her comments and her question. This
gives me an opportunity to elaborate on the requests made
yesterday by the Canadian Federation of Students.
The government opposite talks a lot. It has a hard time
answering our questions. Had it paid more attention to the
Canadian Federation of Students, it would have understood what
is really at stake here.
Yesterday, Canadian students made three requests to the Prime
Minister. It is important to mention them again. First, they are
asking that adequate funding be provided to pay for lawyers'
fees. I think this is a matter of fairness.
Given that the government opposite has a whole team of lawyers
before the complaints commission, it would only be fair to
provide the necessary funding to the students, so that they can
be adequately represented.
The students' second request is that the Prime Minister make a
public apology. Again, this is a matter of fairness.
An hon. member: A real apology.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: A real apology, as the hon. member says.
The Prime Minister must realize that some irresponsible action
was taken. There is an issue of human rights that must be
defended in this parliament, and the Prime Minister should
apologize to the public and to this House.
The third request is that a public commission of inquiry be
appointed to review the whole issue. How can one possibly think
that the RCMP complaints commission is the best court to examine
this political issue? It does not make sense. The commissioners
are being put in an untenable situation. They are not
comfortable with this issue and we can understand why.
The young members of the Canadian Federation of Students are
asking for a public inquiry, so that light can be shed on this
issue. The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois are
asking this government to take its responsibilities.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
was delighted to hear what my colleague from Rosemont had to
say. He painted an excellent picture of the political situation
we have under the government of the Prime Minister and member
for Saint-Maurice.
When things do not go to the minister's liking, he issues
directives himself, and when the RCMP officers do not see what
they should see, what he sees, mainly from behind his big dark
glasses, he attacks the protesters directly. I remember what
happened on the other side of the river when Bill Clennett, a
man before his time, was protesting against the new employment
insurance rules. Now we have the figures. Yesterday a survey
indicated that only 42% of those paying into EI can draw
benefits.
I am asking my colleague whether he has merely neglected to
mention Bill Clennett, who ended up with a couple of broken
teeth.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Speaker, my answer will not deal
specifically with that case, but the Liberal
Party currently has a modus operandi whereby it is through threats and
arrogance that both the members opposite and the general public
are forced to react. We
will be having a vote on this today. Some hon. members have had
the courage to take a stand. I would ask them to be consistent
with that stand and to vote along with the opposition on this.
1340
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, last year in
Vancouver, several hundred people wanted to protest peacefully
the presence of the Indonesian dictator, Suharto, at the APEC
summit.
During the protests, the RCMP intervened and destroyed signs
bearing pro-democracy slogans. Nearly 50 people were arrested.
Some of them were released after promising to give up their
democratic right to protest. We subsequently learned that the
PMO had apparently promised Suharto he would not be bothered by
protesters during his visit to Canada.
Pressured from all sides to examine these events, the Prime
Minister could have enlightened us on the role his office played
in the grave violations of the freedom of expression. Under the
principle of responsible government, the Prime Minister must
account to Parliament for his actions. However, instead of
acceding to the requests of the opposition, he decided to
sacrifice one of his ministers on the altar of cynicism and
arrogance. But both of them are saying nothing. They have told
us to await the results of the investigation by the RCMP public
complaints commission.
The Prime Minister could have said from the outset that he was
prepared to testify before the commission, but he decided to
remain silent, even though he is ultimately responsible for
orders his office apparently gave to the RCMP.
The silence of the Prime Minister and his Solicitor General will
cost taxpayers close to $1 million, the amount the RCMP
complaints commission expects to spend before this inquiry is
over. And what will there be to show for it? Because the
government is refusing to come up with the few thousands of
dollars the student victims of these events need to pay their
lawyers, they will not be able to present their case properly.
The Prime Minister even tried to cast these victims of the RCMP
in the role of aggressors. Yesterday, here in the House, while
briefly taking the heat off the Solicitor General, he once again
denied the unfortunate students the most basic tool of justice,
the right to legal representation.
In his defence, he said:
The police and the government being challenged have a lawyer to
defend them.
But there is no complaint against the students. They are the
ones complaining and they can make their case—
They are the ones complaining against the police. Of course the
police want to defend themselves because they are the ones being
accused.
Finally, he said:
The RCMP is being attacked Some people in my office have been
asked to testify because members of parliament claimed that they
are responsible.
Who is doing the attacking, and who is being attacked? These
young students were merely implementing a few sections of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, passed when the Prime Minister
was justice minister.
But, to add insult to injury, the Prime Minister of Canada even
went so far as to defend the RCMP's actions as civilized. I
quote him again:
Instead of using baseball bats or other weapons, the police are
now trying to use more civilized methods and that is why they
also had towels to help out.
That is the ultimate insult. The Prime Minister's attitude is
unworthy of a government leader. Must he stoop so low and
depict protesting students as violent? Is he so panicked that
his judgment is slipping?
Why raise such spectres? Is it because we are getting close to
Halloween, or because this government has some skeletons in its
closet?
Canada will soon become a member of the UN security council, and
this is certainly to the credit of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. However, at the rate things are going, one wonders if,
before long, Canada will still deserve its enviable reputation
on the human rights.
This is a timely opportunity to ask ourselves how Canada will
exert its influence on world powers. During the two years that
it will be a non permanent member of the security council, will
Canada deploy as much efforts for official development
assistance, defence industry conversion and human rights
protection, as it does for debt reduction, light weapon exports
and trade expansion?
1345
These are important questions which we must put to this
government. The Prime Minister's behaviour since the APEC summit
is unworthy of his position. While he is boasting about studies
that put Canada among the world's best countries, he acts like a
mercenary at the service of dictatorships.
Since human rights are still being trampled in Malaysia, does
the Canadian government intend to take the initiative and ask
that the next APEC summit take place elsewhere than in Kuala
Lumpur?
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the government's
position is to praise human rights activists, as it did during
President Mandela's visit, or to attack ordinary citizens
participating in a peaceful demonstration against dictatorship?
Until it has been ascertained what course will be taken in terms
of foreign policy during its tenure at the security council, I
would appreciate it if the Government of Canada were to put its
money where its mouth is and shed light on the allegations of
repression made against the government and the RCMP.
In this respect, is the Prime Minister prepared to tell us
whether or not the RCMP was acting on his orders when it
trampled the democratic rights of demonstrators?
Does the Prime Minister intend to apologize to all these
citizens who were either arrested or pepper-sprayed, particularly
those who, a few weeks ago, were awarded the Carole Geller award
in recognition of their contribution to human rights advocacy?
Yesterday, in highly hypothetical terms, the Prime Minister
offered the merest suggestion of regrets in response to the
question of a member who noted the case of a person who was hurt
by the police's action. He said:
I said that if this lady has suffered something because of this
abuse by the police it will be judged by the commission. I
apologized to her on behalf of the police.
This sure sounds like an admission on his part. The Prime
Minister shot himself in the foot.
If the RCMP public complaints commission finds the RCMP guilty
of improper conduct during these events, the Prime Minister will
have to take the blame.
To conclude, if the Prime Minister does not answer very soon all
the questions put to him in connection with this matter, people
will say that Canada's reputation as an advocate for human
rights and fundamental freedoms is overrated. You will
understand that, for these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois supports
the NDP motion urging the government to provide funded legal
representation for complainants in the inquiry and has proposed
an amendment to ensure that sufficient funding is provided so
that the legal representation is fair and equitable. This is a
matter of fundamental justice.
[English]
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I liked the reference made by the member opposite to
Hallowe'en. It is the members opposite who are wearing the mask
on this entire issue. None of the members opposite has touched
on any issue that relates to payment to whom, how much and for
how long. That is where they wear the mask. None of them wishes
to be associated with open ended funding on this matter nor would
they wish to be associated with funding with restrictions and
conditions. That also brings its problems. So it is they who
wear the mask.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien: Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the
question of the member opposite by referring to the questions he
has not asked. He simply mentioned that I had not discussed the
whole matter of the payments and the duration of the payments
and that no one wanted to be associated under these conditions.
I would like to know from the hon. member whom he was talking
about, what payment he meant, how long a payment was he talking
about. When he said no one wanted to be associated under these
conditions, he did not even indicate the conditions. So, I find
it very hard to answer a question that has not been asked.
1350
I think the member wanted to draw attention to the facts,
without providing any specifics.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like the opinion of my colleague, the member for Laval
East, on the demonstration at the APEC summit in B.C.
The orders came directly from the Prime Minister's office, and,
in all likelihood, the place had to be cleared by 4 p.m. The
RCMP officers had cylinders of pepper spray, and they had a good
supply, since, on the news, we could see they were not small 10
ounce cylinders but 48 ounce ones.
Since, as the Prime Minister so aptly put it, the RCMP had a
cylinder of pepper spray in one hand and damp towels in the
other to wipe the demonstrators' eyes, I would like to know from
my colleague from Laval East whether in her opinion the actions
were premeditated.
To use colourful language, it is like cutting off somebody's leg
and then rushing them to the hospital to try to stick it back on
or do the necessary stitching.
Mrs. Maud Debien: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for the question. In my opinion, there is one thing on
which we must agree right at the start. According to the motion
brought forward by the New Democratic Party, the students' right
to express themselves freely and peacefully was violated at the
time of the APEC summit. Refusing them financial assistance
would therefore be tantamount to denying that right a second
time, by preventing them from having proper representation at
the commission hearings. These are fundamental principles.
To do otherwise would be to accept that the dice are loaded
against the penniless students who are up against a whole army
of lawyers on the public payroll. Finally, the third matter of
principle is that this is not a run-of-the-mill case. It sets an
important precedent.
It raises vital questions, particularly on a government's
political involvement in the justice system and on the violation
of the fundamental rights of individuals.
These are the three fundamental principles that must be kept in
mind when the entire matter relating to the APEC summit events
is being addressed. In a more direct response to my colleague,
I believe that we have proof, from all the documents we have
been able to obtain and all the statements that have been made,
including those from the dean of UBC, that the entire affair had
been a long time in the planning.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives
me pleasure to enter the debate on this motion.
Canada has always respected the basic fundamentals of freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly. I do not think there is any
other country in the world that is more widely regarded as Canada
in promoting these values not only within our country but
throughout the world.
On behalf of this side of the House, we continue to cherish
those basic fundamental freedoms and continue to ensure that they
exist within our country.
It is an unusual debate today.
I am sure those people with us today will wonder why with the
problems of the nation, finance, poverty and other things, we
have been able to spend so much time on one conference which
occurred in Vancouver almost a year ago. When all the smoke has
cleared, what is the damage that has been done? The damage
appears to be no broken bones, nobody in the hospital, nobody
incarcerated. The damage seems to be some hurt feelings.
1355
What is the process? The process is the public complaints
commission which was set up by a previous government basically to
review the action of a police force. That, as I understand the
complaints procedure, is just that. A person can be a
complainant and appear before the commissioner. The commissioner
has significant resources to carry out his duties of examining
the complainant's claims. There has never been any provision to
provide legal fees for complainants.
What we are talking about today is creating a precedent we will
have to live with. The next time someone has a demonstration and
they feel they were not properly taken care of or perhaps were
insulted or someone stepped on their foot or something, they will
be able not only to go before a complaints commission but to have
access to legal advice and legal representation.
The way members are talking in this House, one would think we
were all there. Everyone seems to have a definition of exactly
what happened. I was not there and I am willing to say that is
why we have a complaints commission examining what happened. Why
do we not allow the commission to do its job, which it is well
paid to do? I note that the government has provided additional
funding over and above its regular funding of $650,000.
In other words, we already have this incident in Vancouver
costing up to a million dollars to the taxpayers and the
opposition now is asking for more money that essentially will
delay and continue this process for no one knows how long, an
open ended situation. Just give us more money. The more money
we get, the more complainants we will get. How long does it go
on? What precedents are we setting for other similar incidents?
The Speaker: My colleague, you still have at least six
minutes left and I know you will take advantage of that in
continuing your representations after question period.
[Translation]
It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN MISSION IN CHIAPAS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October
4, at the invitation of the electoral council of the State of
Chiapas, I led a Canadian mission to Mexico to observe the
election there. Voters went to the polls to choose
representatives for the 40 seats of the local assembly and
mayors for 111 municipalities.
The joint Senate and House of Commons delegation was accompanied
by a delegation from the Assembly of First Nations. To our
delight, the election was a calm event with no bloodshed.
We are happy to note that government officials and citizens in
the State of Chiapas are headed in the right direction, that is
to say towards a stable and resounding democracy.
This mission shows once again the spirit of co-operation and
assistance underlying our relations with our neighbours in
Mexico. We wish the best of luck to our Mexican colleagues and
thank them for their warm welcome.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
despite recent criticisms of the RCMP there is good news.
Last year the Surrey detachment decentralized services by
dividing the city into five districts, each with its own police
station. The move has proven to be very successful. Citizens
appreciate the proximity of the stations, district commanders
take pride in improved community relations and frontline members
have taken ownership by creating logos and giving nicknames to
their district offices.
The Surrey model is now used as a textbook case study for
college and police academy courses.
Surrey detachment is the largest in Canada with an average
resident to police ratio approaching an unacceptable 900:1.
1400
I commend Chief Superintendent Terry Smith, his senior staff and
the members of the Surrey detachment. Despite monumental funding
and resourcing problems compounded by a federal government which
does not seem to care, they have shown that when it comes to
innovation and commitment the RCMP rank and file is second to
none.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that October is Child
Abuse Prevention Month.
Violence against children is a problem that concerns us all
whether it takes the form of sexual abuse, physical, emotional
maltreatment or neglect. All of us must work to prevent child
abuse by promoting social and economic conditions that support
parents and reflect the way we value children. We must intervene
when we suspect a child is being threatened, hurt, neglected or
sexually exploited.
The federal family violence initiative, in partnership with
community, national, corporate and volunteer organizations, has
developed innovative prevention and intervention approaches to
protect children. They are being used across Canada to support
efforts to eliminate child abuse. Together we must continue to
do all we can to protect Canada's children.
* * *
INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last summer the Inuit Circumpolar Conference held its general
assembly in Nuuk, Greenland. The assembly passed a resolution
calling on national governments to act on the elimination of
toxics that make their way to the north. Where enough evidence
exists legislators must act in a cautionary manner to ensure the
protection of public health.
I congratulate the ICC for its foresight and political
leadership. The right to a safe environment is an Arctic issue
that must be reckoned with immediately, especially in light of
mounting evidence of the presence of toxic contaminants at high
levels with the potential to cause harm to humans and animals.
It is my hope that all governments will heed the ICC's
resolution to ensure a healthy and vigorous Arctic environment.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the figures are making liars of the opposition parties, who
predicted economic disaster for the country.
Yesterday, for example, Statistics Canada reported that
manufacturers' deliveries were up 7% in August. It also
reported that most analysts see the August figures as an
important step forward for the economy.
But our government's message remains unchanged: caution is the
order of the day. We must maintain optimal conditions for a
lasting economic recovery.
Fortunately, we are not following the advice of the opposition
parties. Their idea is to increase the deficit in the years
ahead. Perhaps they think we will not eventually have to pay
the piper.
Our government has opted for a cautious approach, an approach
that also focuses on creativity, growth and improving the
quality of life for Canadians.
* * *
[English]
TELUS MOBILITY
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
National Quality Institute announced yesterday that the 1998
Canada Award of Excellence has been won by an Alberta Company, in
fact a Calgary based company. Telus Mobility provides wireless
communication services to Alberta. Yesterday in Toronto, Telus
Mobility was called to the front to accept this most prestigious
award.
This company learned and applied methodologies that made it
number one. These included clearly defined and communicated
objectives, independent assessment of progress toward its goals,
and recognition and rewards at all levels for quality
improvements. The government must learn how to gain efficiencies
from Canadian business people like these who are achieving world
class quality results.
Congratulations to Mr. Harry Truderung, President of Telus
Mobility, for the consistent leadership he has shown and to all
employees who made it happen.
* * *
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Wednesday we saw the opening of the Ekati Diamond Mine in
the Northwest Territories with the promise of a new era of
prosperity for Canada's north.
There was also a diamond connection to last week's biggest
surprise. In the largest individual charitable donation in
Canadian history, Vancouver scientist, investor and diamond
prospector Stewart Blusson announced a donation of $50 million to
support scientific research at the University of British
Columbia.
This donation was made under the Canada Foundation for
Innovation announced in this spring's federal budget, meaning the
donation will ultimately translate into a $150 million investment
into research infrastructure and equipment.
Thanks to Mr. Blusson's generous donation and the success of the
Canada Foundation for Innovation initiative, the University of
British Columbia will remain on the cutting edge of scientific
research and will continue to provide valuable application which
will benefit all Canadians.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
THE LATE NORMAND RACICOT
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the City of
Gatineau is mourning the loss of a great citizen and public
servant, Normand Racicot. Mr. Racicot was respectively executive
assistant under two mayors, director general, secretary-treasurer
and clerk of the City of Gatineau.
Normand Racicot was a kind, polite and professional person, as
can be attested by all those who knew him. He had an
extraordinary sense of community, he kept to his word, he was
renowned for his ability to maintain harmony among city staff,
and he was always available to anyone.
Normand Racicot was faithful to his friends and he fulfilled his
commitments so as to promote the well-being of his fellow
citizens. People were proud to say “Normand is a friend of
mine”.
I extend my deepest condolences to his family.
* * *
[English]
BILL GOLD
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tonight in Calgary a dinner will be held to honour one
of Calgary's favourite chroniclers. For over 30 years Bill Gold
brought his own powerful observations to readers of the Calgary
Herald on the issues that mattered most to his adopted
city.
It makes sense that he started out life as a carnival worker
before entering journalism to become an insightful political
commentator. We well recall his dispatches from Ottawa in which
he blew away the smoke and shattered the mirrors to show his
readers what really goes on here.
Carnival worker, war correspondent, political commentator,
editor and ombudsman, Bill Gold did it all and he did it
eloquently and with passion.
We hope that students awarded the Bill Gold Scholarship for
Studies in the Humanities will know and embrace the humanity of
their benefactor.
We know Bill will laugh when we call him a giant, but our
response to Bill is “if you are not a giant, why have so many
people looked up to you over all these years?”
* * *
LESTER B. PEARSON CENTRE
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that the Elliot Lake
Centre in my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin will be renamed Lester
B. Pearson Centre at a special ceremony this Saturday, October
24.
This honour reflects the many achievements of a former member of
the House, a diplomat, prime minister and Nobel Peace Prize
laureate. It coincides with the 50th anniversary of Mike
Pearson's first election as member of parliament for Algoma East,
a riding which he served admirably for 20 years from 1948 to
1968.
The Elliot Lake Centre was established as a centre of excellence
in education and the performing arts in February 1965 with the
encouragement and support of Lester B. Pearson. In the years
since the founding of the centre, the city of Elliot Lake has
been transformed from a one industry mining town to a community
with a more diversified economy.
The Elliot Lake Centre has evolved as well and is at the
forefront of the redevelopment of the city as it approaches the
new millennium. The centre has been instrumental in the
development—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
suffering generated by poverty is one of the worst violations of
human rights and the greatest failure of our political
institutions.
I salute the courage of the millions of children, women and men
who, every day, struggle to survive, without ever having the
right to express their distress.
Moisson Montréal tells us that the number of meals served in
various help centers in Montreal has increased 38% in the last
two years, and that children now make up 40% of their clientele.
What is the millionaire who owns Canada Steamship Lines doing in
the face of this ever increasing poverty?
He is about to take the $20 billion surplus accumulated in the
employment insurance fund and give it to the rich.
As if this were not enough, the Minister of Finance refuses to
repay the billions taken from the provinces and needed for
health care, income security and education.
We condemn the insensitivity of a minister who is more concerned
with his ships than with fairness and social justice.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend British police arrested Augusto Pinochet, the army
general who led a bloody coup in Chile 25 years ago. At the
request of Spain, the British detained him because Spaniards were
among those murdered following that coup.
[Translation]
General Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected government
and had President Salvador Allende assassinated the day of the
coup.
[English]
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Spanish:]
[English]
Thousands were executed. Many were thrown to their deaths from
helicopters. Thousands more disappeared forever. Hundreds of
thousands were exiled, many of them to this country where they
have made a great contribution.
1410
This caucus, and we hope all members, congratulate Britain and
Spain for sending a clear message that dictators like Pinochet
can run but they cannot hide indefinitely.
The Speaker: Of course there is no problem at all when
speaking any other language than English and French in the House,
but we would hope that you would give this part at least to the
interpreters so that we can all understand what was said.
* * *
[Translation]
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the circus is in
town. Indeed, the Cirque du Soleil is making news these days
with its all new show called “O” in Las Vegas as well as the
“Saltimbanco” tour, in town until November 8.
Since its inception in 1984, the Cirque du Soleil has astonished
17 million spectators with its wonderful amalgamation of the
talents of street performers and circus artists. This Quebec
company headquartered in Montreal currently employs 1,300 people
and will generate approximately $300 million in billings in
1998.
In addition, the Cirque du Soleil commits nearly 1% of its
income from ticket sales to supporting young people suffering
socio-economic hardship.
This is an example of success made in Quebec, where arts,
business and solidarity have come together. I urge all my
colleagues to attend the circus and wish every success to these
ambassadors—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa.
* * *
CÉGEP DE MAISONNEUVE
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in September,
some disgraceful acts took place at the Cégep de Maisonneuve,
when the rights to freedom of expression and representation,
that is the very foundation of democratic rights in our country,
were very clearly interfered with.
The Société générale des étudiants et étudiantes at Maisonneuve
college has its own goons responsible for vandalizing stands set
up by political parties. Not only did they kick young PQ members
out with much fuss, but on September 30, they vandalized the
young Liberals' stand, arguing that no political party was
welcome. A note posted on the association's billboard read “We
boot them out”.
I am sure that the students of Cégep de Maisonneuve—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
* * *
[English]
NEW BRUNSWICK BYELECTION
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I am proud to
congratulate New Brunswick leader Bernard Lord on his two
byelection victories last night.
In Fredericton South, PC MLA-elect Bradley Green beat out his
challengers to capture a riding that has been Liberal for 11
years. He replaces the former Liberal minister of health who
left the health care system anything but healthy.
In Moncton East the leader of the opposition came one step
closer to becoming the premier of New Brunswick. Bernard Lord
won the seat held by former Liberal Premier Ray Frenette for the
last 24 years.
New Brunswick has a Liberal government that is old, tired and
has become arrogant. Most of all, it has lost its respect for
voters and last night we saw the inevitable consequences.
Bernard Lord showed that if one has trust and listens to the
people there is no limit to what one can accomplish.
Congratulations again to the entire PC caucus from all of us. As
they prepare for next year's election, we wish them Godspeed.
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to recognize Women's
History Month in Canada. In honour of this important occasion I
would like to discuss the increasing involvement of women in
science and technology.
In the 1960s few women studied chemistry and engineering because
the attitude was that girls were not engineers. Today the number
of women working in science and technology is on the rise, but we
still have a gender imbalance.
Statistics Canada reported that in 1994 only 12% of students or
professionals in the natural sciences, engineering and
mathematics were women. Encouraging and developing the talents
of young Canadian women can only benefit our country and help
keep Canada competitive in the global economy.
Government initiatives such as the National Research Council's
women in engineering and science program and support for
organizations such as the Canada Coalition of Women in
Engineering, Science and Technology will help ensure that this
indeed happens.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us get this straight.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the students at UBC should
be thankful that they were not beaten with baseball bats at last
year's APEC summit. Then this morning he referred to water
cannons.
1415
Did the Prime Minister really mean to say that students should
thank him for not attacking them with baseball bats and water
cannons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want the commission to look into that for the people
of Canada to know exactly what happened. If there were some
means that were used that were not acceptable we will be advised.
I am sure the police will make the proper decision.
In order to achieve this what we want to do is let the
commission study the problem, hear the witnesses and come to a
conclusion. The opposition wants to debate this in this House
because they do not want to listen to the witnesses at the
commission. I want to know the truth from the commission.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every member in this House heard the Prime Minister's
reference to using baseball bats on students yesterday. We were
not relying on hearsay. We were not relying on the unreliable
memory of the solicitor general.
The Prime Minister was asked yesterday to apologize for using
pepper spray on students and instead he said they were lucky he
did not use baseball bats.
Will the Prime Minister apologize today for that insulting
response he gave yesterday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if someone should apologize it should be the Leader of
the Opposition who is trying to use this incident to try to score
political points.
I am very concerned about these incidents and what I want is the
commission to look into the matter, look at all the facts, hear
all the witnesses and report. I think the citizens of Canada, I
in particular, are very concerned about having a very civilized
society. It is why I was the minister who introduced the charter
of rights for all Canadians.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister used to present himself as the little
guy from Shawinigan, the friend of the underdog, but now a
different picture is emerging. It is a picture of someone who
cannot tolerate dissent, someone who cannot tolerate
embarrassment and who thinks people should be thankful he is not
carrying a baseball bat.
If the Prime Minister does not like this ugly portrait that is
emerging of himself why does he not start to tell the whole truth
about his role in the APEC security scandal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say thank you to the Leader of the
Opposition for confirming that I am still the little guy from
Shawinigan. I am very proud of it.
I want the inquiry to ask all the questions because, I repeat, I
have no preoccupation with the abilities of the RCMP to handle
the situation in Vancouver. They did a fantastic job at the G-7
meeting in Halifax. It was the only G-7 meeting where leaders of
the countries were able to shake hands with citizens because the
RCMP—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
1420
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the only place that this Prime Minister is a little guy from
Shawinigan is in his own mind.
Why is he so stubborn? Does he not realize that the reference
to baseball bats yesterday and then trying to placate people by
talking about water cannons today is totally unacceptable and
completely offensive to Canadians? Why will he not apologize?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want the commission to look into that. It is the
opposition that keeps raising these problems.
The situation is that we have a committee in Canada that permits
any citizen who has a complaint against the police to be heard
and have the complaint disposed of. It is exactly why we have
said to the commission to do its work as quickly as possible. It
is why the solicitor general has made more resources available to
it so it can do a thorough job so Canadians will know the truth.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
one thing I will say about the Prime Minister is at least he is
consistent. In 36 years he has never apologized for anything.
In this instance he is wrong to be talking about taking baseball
bats to students' head. Why will he not apologize?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the CBC French network a reporter said I apologized
six times yesterday. I can understand that the member does not
watch French TV but it is what I heard.
I have said many times I have no problem apologizing to anybody.
I want people to understand that it is the opposition that
should apologize for depriving the Canadian people of an
independent body to look into that problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
more questions we ask about the Peppergate affair, the more we
begin to understand what really went on in Vancouver and, more
to the point, what the Prime Minister thinks about it.
Is the Prime Minister not refusing to get to the bottom of the
APEC incident because he basically agrees with the heavy-handed
intervention of the RCMP, as long as it used cayenne pepper, and
not baseball bats?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
hope that, when the police intervene, they use nothing else, and
that they maintain order as simply as possible.
The RCMP does this very well in all sorts of circumstances. I
would like the commission to look at all aspects of the
Vancouver controversy and inform Canadians of the truth, after
which the government will take appropriate action.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the Prime Minister realize that he is in a conflict of interest
situation, because not only he is one of those accused, but he
is also denying those who complained legal representation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the commission is examining the incidents. Complaints were
filed against the RCMP in Vancouver and the commission of
inquiry is studying the problem, as it is required to do by law.
There are no accused in all this; the students have been
accused of absolutely nothing. According to the students, a few
police officers were a bit heavy-handed and the commission will
determine whether or not that was the case.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): 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?
1425
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said many times, the public complaints commission
was established some 10 years ago to give ordinary Canadians
access to a process that would not require them to have a lawyer.
It was intended to be informal. I think it is very important.
There are many similar tribunals across government and it is very
important that we preserve the right of Canadians to have access
to such informal processes.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Solicitor General has already looked silly enough in the
Peppergate affair. If he is unwilling to provide legal
representation for the students, what is he waiting for to end
this parody of justice?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I think it is important and I think Canadians
want to get to the truth in this matter. The public complaints
commission is exactly the forum to do that and I have every
confidence that is exactly what will happen.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Prime Minister.
During the summer the public complaints commission asked for
funded legal representation for students. The government said
no. Strike one. Earlier this month the commission asked a
second time. The government said no again. Strike two. Today
the commission's request in the form of a motion is before this
House.
Before the Prime Minister strikes out can he explain how justice
is served by saying no to students yet again?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained yesterday that there is a commission
established by the Parliament of Canada to make sure that when
people have complaints against the RCMP the commission provides
them with the support they need so that they can testify.
This system has existed for 10 years. As I said in the House
yesterday, the lawyer of the commission is willing to help the
students testify.
There is no accusation against any student. They are just
complainants and the commission is looking at the complaints they
have before the commission.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on APEC
this government has loads of money for pollsters to tell it what
Canadians are thinking, loads of money for PR consultants to tell
Canadians what they should be thinking, loads of money for
lawyers to make the Prime Minister look good but no money for
students, no money for justice.
The commission itself says pay. The federal court says pay. Why
not do the right thing and just pay the students' legal costs?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as has been explained many times before, we did increase
the amount of money available to the public complaints commission
by some $650,000 to facilitate their participation, as was
originally intended when the public complaints commission was
established and as it will be after this investigation is over.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, either this government has complete faith in the
competence of the public complaints commission or it does not.
The commission has twice requested funding for the students yet
the solicitor general refuses to accept this advice. The
solicitor general knows there is a precedent, that inmates from
the Kingston prison for women were provided with legal funding to
pursue their complaints with the request of the Arbour inquiry.
Will the solicitor general show the same confidence in this
commission's judgment, stop covering for the Prime Minister and
restore fairness to this process by approving student funding
today?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my confidence in the public complaints commission
that allowed me to make available the $650,000 in additional
funding to facilitate this process.
It is also my confidence in the public complaints commission's
comments to me that it is very convinced that this can be done
fairly and thoroughly, and justice will indeed be served.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general is one of two law officers
whose obligation to parliament supersedes any political loyalty
to the Prime Minister.
By consulting with the Prime Minister's office on the issue of
funding for the APEC hearings the solicitor general has yet again
compromised his office and tainted a process which he has so
vigorously defended.
Once upon a time the solicitor general had a responsibility to
parliament yet he has repeatedly betrayed this loyalty. Will he
recognize his failing, show some respect for this institution and
offer his resignation?
1430
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times, the application of this
argument applies to a number of tribunals that cost not only the
federal but provincial governments as well. Consequently the
idea of consulting with colleagues broadly on this issue is the
responsible thing to do.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
spent 22 years on the Calgary police department and during part
of that time trained as a riot squad member. The only time I
ever used a baseball bat was when I took my son to the park and
we played baseball. Bats are not police issue nor are water
cannons. They are only used to disperse students in third world
country dictatorships.
When will the Prime Minister stop maligning the good reputation
of Canada's police forces and admit that he was at the root of
the APEC clamp down?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest that the hon. members across the way should
quit maligning the process.
An hon. member: Resign.
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, the important issue at this
time is to get to the bottom of the events that happened in the
interest of Canadians, in the interest of the truth and in the
interest of the complainants who filed the original complaint
before this commission. That is what we are here to preserve.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are here to preserve the truth and what happened at the APEC
conference.
I spent my entire life fighting crime and criminals. The Prime
Minister here has been fighting students—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am sure you want to hear both
the question and the answer. The hon. member for Calgary
Northeast.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is
fighting freedom of speech and people protesting. He wants to
blame the CBC, the RCMP and even the students for the pepper
spray scandal.
Will the Prime Minister stop with the jokes, come clean with
Canadians and take responsibility for what happened at APEC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to say that if the hon. member has any
respect for the RCMP, he will stop using scandal involving the
RCMP and he will wait to see what the commission reports on the
conduct of the RCMP.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, for months and months, the Bloc Quebecois has
been reminding the Minister of Human Resources Development that
fewer and fewer of the unemployed are covered by employment
insurance. This is all the more shocking because a study by his
own department has not been able to refute this.
Now that he has confirmation that the reforms have hit the
unemployed very hard, what is the minister waiting for before he
changes the plan to improve its accessibility?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what our departmental study
showed clearly is that close to 80% of workers who lose their
jobs are covered by the employment insurance system.
The Bloc Quebecois has been using the
contributor-jobless-recipient ratio for the past year in an
attempt to try to get us to backtrack, to bring people back to
dependence on an employment insurance system which discouraged
them from working. They were wrong. The employment insurance
system covers 78% of unemployed workers.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we not to understand that the purely
technocratic jargon of the minister disguises an intention to
use these studies to disguise the sad reality of the jobless who
are excluded from benefits under the program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the study has very clearly
shown is that the majority of those not covered by employment
insurance are people who never worked and therefore never
contributed to the employment insurance system. They are people
who are self-employed, and therefore not covered, people who were
working and left—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1435
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that most of
the changes to our program were intended to help people stay in
the work force. But what these people would like to see is a
system which encourages an undesirable dependency.
These people were not covered by the EI system. The people who
ought to be covered are properly covered.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister tried everything in his power to sabotage
yesterday's Alberta Senate elections. He instructed his
provincial wing not to run a candidate. He called the process
supported by 90% of Albertans a joke. Then he appointed another
patronage hack in the middle of the election. But Albertans
ignored this Prime Minister and went to the polls in record
numbers yesterday to give Bert Brown the largest democratic
mandate ever given to a candidate in Canadian history. Will this
Prime Minister abide that democratic mandate and appoint Bert
Brown to the next Senate vacancy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in Alberta the Conservative Party provincially and
federally had no candidate, the NDP federally and provincially
had no candidate, the Liberals federally and provincially had no
candidate, all the people from Alberta who thought this process
was not very useful. The people in Alberta went to vote
yesterday in very few numbers. I am told that twice as many
voted on the video lottery referendum than voted on the Senate.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government is laughing at democracy. Yesterday nearly half
a million Albertans cast ballots, the largest result for a
candidate in Canadian history. Bert Brown yesterday won more
votes; more Canadian citizens cast votes for Bert Brown than have
cast votes for this Prime Minister in his entire political
career, and he calls it a joke.
Will he apologize to Albertans for his arrogance and his
contempt for democracy? Will he appoint one of the elected
candidates to the next vacancy in the Senate, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a Senate that is not elected. We on this side
voted for an elected, equal and effective Senate while the Leader
of the Opposition campaigned against the Charlottetown accord. We
have a Senate that has been given to us by the Brits. It is like
the House of Lords. And here I am, a French Canadian from Quebec
defending a British tradition.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister is trying to tell us that the employment insurance
program meets the needs of the unemployed. That is just not
true.
Is the minister simply not trying to justify the fact that
employment insurance will not be improved and that the Minister
of Finance can siphon money from the pockets of the unemployed
without fear?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I say very clearly that the
unemployed not covered by the employment insurance system are
generally those the system was not designed for, in other words,
those who have never worked or have never contributed, those who
are self-employed and those who have worked only a few weeks.
1440
I want the opposition to know that we are concerned about these
people too. We have set up programs for them. This is why we
set up the transitional jobs fund and the youth employment
strategy, which are far more useful than having them go on
unemployment as the Bloc members would like.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is this
heartless speech by the Minister of Human Resources Development
not recognition of his defeat by the Minister of Finance and of
the fact that the theft of the employment insurance fund may
take place?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would prefer that members not use the word
“theft” in their questions.
An hon. member: He is a fund looter.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can say one thing: we as the
government have taken a balanced approach intended to help
Canadian workers remain in the labour market as long as
possible. This is why we set up programs outside the employment
insurance fund, financed by the Minister of Finance in recent
years, such as the transitional jobs fund and the youth
employment strategy.
The employment insurance system serves those it is supposed to
serve, and we are looking after the others with very good
programs through the government's consolidated fund.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the finance minister had the choice to give Canadians tax
relief and he did not. Instead he blew two-thirds of the $9
billion surplus. He just spent it away.
Canadians were promised tax relief when the budget was balanced.
Well, it is balanced now. Where is the tax relief? Canadians
have had it with the empty promises. Where is it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last budget we introduced measures that will
bring over the course of the next three years $7 billion worth of
tax relief.
Let me check the numbers out: 1998-99, $1.5 billion; 1999-2000,
$2.3 billion; the year 2000, $3.1 billion. The Reform Party
voted against it.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister takes $10 out of people's pockets and gives them
back 25 cents and expects them to be grateful. That is
ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is since this finance minister came to
power he has taxed back 155% of the wage gains Canadians have
received. I think Canadians have been more than patient. I
think the finance minister owes them big time.
Canadians need tax relief now. When is he going to fulfil his
promise? When are they going to get real tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just told the member where the tax relief is
going to come in this year, next year and the year after.
Let us understand that the difference of opinion between the
Reform Party and ourselves is not about reducing taxes. We want
to reduce taxes. The difference is Reform wants to do it by
cutting health care and by cutting equalization and we will not
do that.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Minister of Finance announced that all his budget
surplus would be used to reduce Canada's debt.
How will the minister, who intends to go door to door during the
next election campaign in Quebec, explain that not one penny
will go to health, even though this is what Quebec's premier and
all the other premiers are asking for?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, opposition parties are having a hard time doing their
homework.
The member is asking us if we are prepared to transfer money for
health. In the last budget, the 1998 budget, most of the $900
million transferred was for health. In 1999 and in the year
2000, it will be $1.5 million. In the year 2000, $1.5 million
again will go to health. We have done that.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Since 1975 Australia has prohibited the import of Canadian
salmon due to bogus health concerns.
1445
Can the minister tell us what is happening with Canada's
complaint to the WTO on this matter?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from British
Columbia for raising the question.
The position of the Government of Canada has been all along that
access has been undeniably illegal. In June the WTO panel agreed
with our position. Earlier today the panel once again rejected
the appeal by the Australians and agreed with the Canadian
position.
It just goes to show that not only do we have world class
salmon, but rules in the WTO can work for Canada.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister talks about the disposal of the
EI funds as being some sort of public debate.
The fact is that the debate has already been held in the finance
minister's back room. He has clearly shown in his budget that he
has already used up all the EI surplus.
What kind of a line is he trying to hand Canadians? Why does he
not come clean and tell Canadians he has already made up his
mind, he has scooped the EI funds and Canadians are getting
nothing back?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to go back and read his
party's platform where it states unequivocally that its
recommendation was to use 100% of the notional EI account to
offset the deficit?
He is now rising in the House and arguing against his party's
policy. Is the same thing going to happen to Dick Harris that
happened to Jim Hart?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would hope that we would
not address each other by name and that that will be the last
time it happens today.
The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal trained seals may clap on cue for
the finance minister, the fact is that over the last five years
155% of any wage gains that Canadian working people have made has
been taxed back by this finance minister. Canadians are in a net
55% deficit on any wage gain.
I ask the finance minister: Why does he not simply do the right
thing, the thing he has promised but has not fulfilled, and
promise today that some real tax breaks are going to come for
hard working Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already said that we have provided over $7
billion in tax breaks for Canadians.
What does the hon. member think the $3.5 billion the Reform
Party wants to take out of health transfers to the provinces will
do? What is that going to do to middle class Canadians who want
decent hospital services? What is going to happen when $1
billion is taken out of equalization transfers for Saskatchewan
and Manitoba? Are they not going to have to pay increased
property taxes and increased provincial taxes?
What the Reform Party is recommending is that Canadian property
owners and municipalities—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if there is
one person who relies on employment insurance, it is definitely
the Minister of Finance.
The minister of Human Resources Development is manipulating
employment insurance figures. With respect to the number of
recipients, he does not take into account those left behind by
the system: the long term unemployed, unemployed independent
workers and a number of workers who had to quit their jobs.
In all, those who no longer qualify for benefits now account for
62% of the unemployed.
Why does the minister deny the reality most unemployed Canadians
are facing?
1450
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the hon.
member's attention the fact that the classes of unemployed he
just referred to were never covered by the employment insurance
system in Canada. The long term unemployed were not covered
previously. The system never applied to individuals who have
never worked.
The change is that our government established programs like the
transitional jobs fund and the youth employment strategy
precisely to help those not covered by the employment insurance
system to enter the labour force and contribute to society,
because that is what people want.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say to the minister that, knowing the employment
insurance system, his figures are wrong. What he is saying is
absolutely wrong.
The number of unemployed who receive benefits dropped from 83%
to 38% in nine years. One half of this drop is the result of
government reforms, while the other half is due to the Liberals'
inability to adjust employment insurance to the new realities of
the labour market. With a $20 billion surplus in the EI account,
what is the minister waiting for to improve access to benefits?
The figures quoted in the House today are wrong. Sixty-two
percent of the unemployed do not qualify for employment
insurance benefits.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 78% of the Canadian labour
force—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that,
according to the data confirmed yesterday and released by my
department, 78% of Canadians who have a connection with the
labour force and who lost their jobs for valid reasons are
covered under the employment insurance system.
Those who are not covered by the system—
Mr. Yvon Godin: That is wrong.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Paul Martin has all the money. That's the
problem.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvon Godin: That's where the money has gone. It's the
finance minister who is spending it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvon Godin: He should be ashamed.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I appeal to you. When question
period breaks down we cannot hear the questions or the answers.
When a question is asked, surely courtesy would demand that we
listen to the answer. As well, when a question is being asked
courtesy would also demand, surely, that we listen to what the
question is. I appeal to you, my colleagues, to please contain
yourselves.
* * *
AIRCRAFT SAFETY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Since the horrible crash of Swissair Flight 111 off Peggy's Cove
in Nova Scotia there have been several cases of emergency
landings in Canada due to smoke in the cockpit, including another
one just last night in St. John's, Newfoundland.
Many aviation experts have identified kapton wiring as a
possible cause for frequent wiring failure in aircraft.
Considering that the minister often says that safety is the
number one priority in his department, what is the minister
doing, if anything, to assure that kapton wiring is not a hazard
in these aircraft?
1455
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are quite concerned with these forced landings of
various aircraft. I think it is very important that we have the
full evidence from the transportation safety board, whether it is
on the Swissair crash, the landing last night by British Airways
or even the incident last week involving an Air Canada jet
landing at Thunder Bay, before we jump to any conclusions.
There has been a lot of speculation about insulation and kapton
wiring as being the cause of smoke in the cockpit, but until we
have the evidence we cannot bring in any regulatory measure to
deal with it until we know what we are talking about.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I believe there is ample evidence now that there could
be a hazard with kapton wiring. In fact the minister of defence
has ordered that the kapton wiring be removed from some of his
aircraft. In 1987 the American airforce removed it from some of
its aircraft and since 1995 no manufacturers have used it.
I believe there is ample evidence to move ahead on the national
transportation safety board inquiries and act now.
Will the minister appoint a task force to determine whether this
aircraft wiring is unsafe or not?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to appoint any task force because
Transport Canada, as the regulatory agency, is looking into all
of these problems on an ongoing basis and dealing with questions
of insulation and wiring.
On the question of kapton, we are looking at the situation. We
have not come to any determination that it constitutes a safety
hazard as long as the planes are properly maintained. Transport
Canada maintains a rigorous inspection of all commercial aircraft
in the country.
Again, we have to look at the TSB reports before we actually act
to find the true cause of these accidents and take preventative
measures.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week has been proclaimed by Canada's YWCA as a week
without violence. The Minister of Justice knows of the high
degree of concern among Canadian women about crimes of violence
generally and in the home.
Will the justice minister tell the House during this week
without violence what her ministry is doing to bring about a
reduction in criminal violence in our homes and in our
communities?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important issue. On behalf of the government I want to
congratulate the YWCA for declaring this a week without violence.
We on this side of the House not only condemn violence, we work
to prevent violence. Let me say in particular as it relates to
violence against youth and violence against women that we have
put in place a crime prevention strategy that targets violence
against both young people and women in the home. Rather than
sitting here—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in October 1997 Motion No. 222 passed in this House. It
dealt with constructive solutions to fix the organ donor crisis
in this country which has claimed 140 lives this year so far.
Since that time nothing has been done.
Will the Minister of Health stop pondering and start acting to
implement Motion No. 222 before another 140 Canadians die, and
will he do it before the end of this year?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is quite wrong in saying that nothing has been done. I
do acknowledge his interest in the subject and thank him for
having met with me about it and providing me with information,
which I considered carefully.
I want the hon. member to know, indeed the House to know, that
the department of health is working with provincial ministries of
health, medical associations and other interested persons to find
a way forward on encouraging availability of organs for donation.
We are doing that through consultation and by encouraging people
to fill out organ donation forms in the provinces. We are also
looking at other strategies that we believe will be effective.
The member should know that we are working with all those
involved to find a better way.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Transport
Canada has admitted that it was responsible for the
contamination of the water table in the Sept-Îles beach area. In
order to correct the situation, the government has decided to
distribute bottled water to the families affected, until the
year 2007 if necessary.
The people in my riding want to be supplied again with drinking
water. What does the Minister of Transport intend to do to solve
the problem caused by his department?
1500
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct, this is a very
serious problem. It was brought to the attention of the
residents by Transport Canada ourselves. We have taken remedial
measures.
The solution of bottled water in the short term is not the long
term solution and we are working with the town officials and
other residents to make sure this issue is addressed.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
members to the presence in the gallery, first of all, of Mr.
Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein Party of Northern
Ireland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I also wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of members and performers of Cirque du
Soleil.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: As you know, a reception will be held for them in
room 216 after Oral Question Period.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—APEC INQUIRY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to have this opportunity to speak to this particular
issue.
I was absent from the House for the first three weeks of this
session as I was at home in Winnipeg assisting my wife with our
new baby. I cannot take as much credit for it as she can, but I
think it was a wonderful experience anyway.
However, I had an opportunity to be a spectator or an observer
of what has gone on here in the last little while, so when the
opportunity arose to speak on it I was only too eager to do so.
I am in my 11th year of elected office. I served two terms in
the provincial legislature in Manitoba, in opposition, and I am
now in my second term as a federal member. One of the things I
learned very quickly when I was first elected was that it is very
easy to inflame passions on all sorts of issues. In a sense,
when people are in opposition, as I was, they are rewarded for
it. When I used to not want to be quoted on something I would
step out into the scrum and say something quiet, reasonable and
considerate and I would be guaranteed never to appear in print.
However, if I went out and pounded my fists, screamed, yelled
and talked about how outrageous and terrible it was, I would be
guaranteed a clip. I would even get a camera. Unfortunately
this is the environment that we live in. I say unfortunately
because when I meet in committee outside of this place with
members from all sides of this House that is not the discussion
or debate that I take part in. I take part in a discussion about
how we do things to improve things for Canadians.
Something every now and again goes wrong around here, but I am
not sure what it is. I have only seen once before in my rather
short experience that an issue kind of captures the attention of
the media and we get sort of a self-reinforcing dance that goes
back and forth between members of the opposition who glean all
this wonderful attention and the media who have something to
write about.
It surprises me when an issue accelerates the way this one has.
It is a very serious issue. We have a charge from a group of
Canadians that the RCMP have infringed their rights by acting in
a way that is above and beyond the way in which they have to act.
We have those complaints regularly. We have them in my own
province and city. We have something called LERA, the Law
Enforcement Review Agency. If somebody feels that a police
officer has been abusive to them they have the ability to go
before a citizen panel, lay a complaint and have that complaint
acted upon. The system acts on their behalf.
They do not have to incur any charges. They do not have to incur
any costs. They go forward and say “A policeman assaulted me. A
policeman abused me”. The system will then act to protect the
rights of that citizen. That is the kind of country that we
have.
1510
We have a serious charge. I am not going to prejudge it. I do
not know, as I was not there. I did not witness it. I have been
on both sides of demonstrations. I grew up in an RCMP household.
I have also worked on the streets with kids that were badly
abused by the police. I am not going to prejudge this situation.
We have a process that has been in place for nearly 12 years
that receives a thousand complaints a year and that adjudicates
300 a year. It has had 3,000 cases in its history. We have
never felt it acted irresponsibly, under political direction or
unethically. In this country we have always felt that the
commission defended our rights.
I sit at home and watch the House talk daily about the
dishonesty of people, members hearing things in the corners and
running out to tell the media, or somebody hearing something in a
gym. A member in the House stood up to apologize to somebody
privately, saying “If I caused you any hurt, I am sorry”. The
member ran into the hallway to tell the press. What are we
creating? How are we going to do the work that we all really
want to do if that is the kind of atmosphere that we create?
The solicitor general is not just my colleague, he is a friend.
I have worked with him for a long time. Members opposite who
have an interest in the issues have worked with us together. I
know that those members know that the solicitor general would
never interfere with the operation of that commission. It is not
in his manner, demeanour or ethics. It is not the way he has
conducted himself his entire life. That is the reality. This is
the man I know and work with and this is the man members on the
other side have known and worked with. Yet daily people stand in
the House and impugn his motives and call him all sorts of
outrageous things. I am shocked by it.
Ed Greenspon wrote an article in the Globe yesterday. I
know Greenspon and I know his work. I like him. I think he is a
good reporter. He said that the solicitor general's problem was
that he spoke too long, he was too open and too honest. Is that
a problem? Should we decide it is better to be duplicitous, to
duck, weave and hide, not tell the truth and criticize a person
in our national paper for being too open? There is something
wrong in this debate.
The commission has to investigate. The students are not being
charged with anything. The commission is there to act on their
behalf. The commission has an additional $650,000. If it feels
it needs to access more expertise and resources, it has the
budget. It has the power to make those decisions and it always
has acted independently. There is a point when we have to get
off the merry-go-round and start to deal with the business of
Canada in the House.
I heard today a question about fire safety on an airplane.
People have died. There is a possibility that planes are unsafe.
This is the first time in five weeks that somebody even spoke
about it in the House. They are too busy trying to figure out
new and cute ways to slander somebody. At some point we have to
stop and consider what we are doing and let the process work. If
the RCMP have acted improperly, they should be dealt with. If
they have not, they deserve our support.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his appeal for
reason. Unfortunately there are some facts missing from what he
had to say.
He said he was surprised by the acceleration of this incident.
He cannot understand why opposition members are concerned about
this. The truth of the matter is that it is Canadians who are
concerned about this. They are concerned about the actions that
were taken at APEC.
They are concerned that there are notes in police officers' files
saying things such as PM wants tenters out, or there is a direct
link between the Prime Minister's office and the operations of
APEC. Canadians are concerned about the fact that there is not a
level playing field for the students.
1515
In fact the opposition members will not stop bringing these
issues up until the government comes clean with some answers,
until it admits its responsibility. The Prime Minister is the one
who ducks and weaves. The solicitor general is the one who said
he could not remember who the individual was who sat beside him
and then it turns out it is a friend he has known for 15 years.
That is unbelievable.
The solicitor general may be a nice man, but if he is going to
stand in this House as an elected representative and take on the
role of solicitor general, then he has to abide by the
responsibilities of that job. That is what we are talking about
here.
I do not see my hon. colleague in this place to respond to the
question, so I will just simply make that comment. That is why
we are continuing to ask the government why it simply will not
tell us what it is that happened at APEC, the Prime Minister's
involvement, the solicitor general's involvement, the fact that
he prejudiced the outcome of the PCC investigation by his
comments on the plane and he will not resign.
It is because of that fact that opposition parties will continue
to pressure the government on this issue and other issues. It is
our role and our job to keep this government accountable for its
actions. We do not apologize for it. In fact, we promise the
government more of the same.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I would also like to make some comments and raise
some questions following the speech by the member for Winnipeg
South.
The member in his attempt to appeal for reason in this chamber
has clearly underestimated the seriousness of the issue we are
dealing with. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has just
said, he has very much trivialized the issues at hand.
What is so clear today is that we are dealing with a fundamental
matter of human rights and the pursuit of freedom and justice in
a democratic state. All of those questions are in doubt today
surrounding the actions pertaining to student demonstrators at
APEC last year.
The comments of the member for Palliser on the conversation he
overheard pertaining to the solicitor general are all serious.
The member for Winnipeg South is disregarding the importance of
this input and this debate. I would very much like to ask the
member for Winnipeg South if he does not feel that we need to
operate on the basis of a level playing field. We need all the
facts on the table. We need to understand that the proceedings
before the complaints commission have not been prejudiced or
prejudged.
The member for Winnipeg South was no doubt at the meeting in
Winnipeg when his leader the Prime Minister cracked another joke
pertaining to pepper. I wonder how the member feels about the
way in which this matter has been trivialized by the Prime
Minister and whether he would not join us in acknowledging that
these kinds of jokes do not help the matter. They are not funny
and they certainly are hurtful for the people involved.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I should indicate at the outset that I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Vancouver East. I would appreciate some
signal from you and I expect I will get it when my time is almost
up.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the motion that my party has
introduced into the House of Commons today. It is an important
motion. I think it is a simply worded motion. It is one that has
no ambiguity; it is one that is clear and direct. I will read it
so that those listening to this debate and reading the transcript
of it later will know exactly what we are asking of the
government and all members of the House of Commons today:
That this House urges the government to agree to the request of
the RCMP Public Complaints Commission—
It is not our request, not the students' request, but is the
request of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.
1520
I rise to speak to the motion, having addressed this issue some
time ago. As my colleagues who have spoken to this motion have
noted, the day this House resumed sitting after the summer
recess, my colleagues and myself at a press conference asked the
government to set up a judicial inquiry to look into the role of
the Prime Minister's office in the security arrangements at APEC.
The Prime Minister and the solicitor general have ignored this
request and they have continued to say let the public complaints
commission do its work.
In the absence of a forum of a judicial inquiry, we are asking
today that the public complaints commission's own request be
acceded to by the government and that funding be provided for
those students to at least level the playing field.
Like many of the members in this House who have spoken to this
issue, I come from a legal background. I am a lawyer. I spent
many years in Nova Scotia as a legal aid lawyer representing the
very people, many of them students, who did not have the
resources to go before public boards, public inquiries or courts
without legal representation. I can unequivocally say that when
one side is represented in a hearing and the other side is not,
there is not a level playing field.
That is why the public complaints commission has asked for the
students to have funding for legal counsel. It is not just to
level the playing field, it also makes the whole process operate
more smoothly. There are not questions of evidence that are not
understood by one party. There can be agreements negotiated when
everybody knows the rules so that the lawyers for one side and
the lawyers for the other knowing the ruling can come together
and simplify the process to get to the truth faster. That does
not happen when there is only legal counsel for one side.
It is unfair to those people who are going before the commission
unrepresented to ask them to understand all of the nuances, all
of the rules that occur at a public complaints commission hearing
or indeed at any other hearing.
I mentioned today in one of my questions, how many of us as
members of parliament have had to help our constituents when they
have had to appear before Canada pension plan disability
hearings. Try to explain to a person uneducated in the law what
it means to present yourself at a tribunal, what it means to
understand the rules of evidence, what it means to cross-examine
someone. It is unfair because they do not understand it.
Some have said that this has not happened before, that the
public complaints commission has not had a history of funding
counsel for those who lay a complaint. This is true. But this is
an extraordinary hearing. This is not a normal everyday run of
the mill complaint against the RCMP. The reason it is not has
nothing to do with the students' complaints. It has to do with
information that has come before the commission which has made it
broaden its scope because there is evidence—and I am not making
unfounded accusations, I am simply stating the facts—that leads
to the very highest corridors of power in this country.
There is evidence that suggests the involvement of the Prime
Minister's office and perhaps of the Prime Minister himself in
the security arrangements at APEC. I am not prejudging it. I am
saying that takes this inquiry out of the normal run of the mill
inquiry and raises the threshold. Therefore the procedural
fairness has to be beyond question if Canadians are to have any
faith in the final outcome of the commission's hearing.
These are extraordinary hearings. It is not right to say we may
be setting a precedent, that if we fund these students we will
have to fund every other group that comes before the public
complaints commission. Maybe we will, if in every single
instance it indicates that the Prime Minister's office is
involved. However I think we can say with some safety and some
rational thought that we are now beyond the normal scope of the
public complaints commission and what it usually deals with.
The pointing of fingers to the most influential people in this
country has raised the threshold.
Yet despite repeated requests by the commission and despite the
Federal Court of Canada suggesting the students should have
independent counsel, we meet with refusal after refusal after
refusal by the solicitor general and his government to provide
the funding that is necessary to level the playing field.
1525
There are those who say that there are more important issues.
The Prime Minister alluded to this in answering questions the
week before last. They ask why the opposition is focusing on
this public complaints commission. They say we should let the
commission move on and do its work while we talk about something
else.
There are many important issues in this country, not the least
of which are economic issues. I come from an area of the country
that has huge unemployment problems. However, I say on behalf of
all Canadians that nothing is more precious in this country than
our rights and our freedoms. When those are lost, when there is
no justice, then all else crumbles. Justice is the foundation of
a civil society. Without it there is anarchy.
The Prime Minister smiles, jokes and says that there are other
issues. I say in reply that one may smile and smile and still be
a villain. Canadians know, we in this party know and we ask this
House to consider how important those civil liberties are. When
they are infringed upon, the process of determining the truth is
as important as what the findings themselves are.
I said in this House in my last question to the solicitor
general before the House adjourned that justice must not only be
done, it must be seen to be done if Canadians are to have faith
that the answer is a true one. Without a level playing field,
without Canadians knowing that these students have had fair
representation, the same representation as the government and the
RCMP, the findings of that commission will be suspect whether or
not they should be.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The
price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We in this party and
those who have spoken in favour of this motion understand that we
must be vigilant in guarding not only the rights of Canadians but
also the process of ensuring that those rights are guarded in a
fair and decent way.
I spent the morning reading some papers and about how the late
Justice Dickson had the courage to interpret the charter of
rights. The courage to look after our rights is something we
have pride in. The students at APEC who are challenging the
police have that courage.
The question on this vote will be whether the members opposite
have the courage to protect the rights of Canadians in the same
way the students before this inquiry have and the same way the
veterans who fought for those rights have. I ask everyone who
watches or listens to this program to watch the way their member
of parliament votes tonight on the very important issue of
Canadian civil liberties.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for his comments. There are lawyers to represent
the RCMP and there are lawyers to represent the witnesses who may
be called from the Prime Minister's office. Who will pursue the
evidence that leads to the Prime Minister's office if there is
not legal representation for the students? If there is no legal
representation in this area, how will that evidence be pursued?
How will it be examined? How will it be determined whether or
not there was political interference in the exercise of police
authority at the APEC summit?
1530
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. Having served on the justice committee with
the member, I know his questions are often to the point. This is
one that is because it goes to the very core of what I was
saying.
Without proper legal representation, that trail is left to the
students themselves. There will be some assistance by the
counsel for the commission. He is to be commended and he said he
will do what he can to assist the students.
I have very real questions regarding this forum even getting
that far. This is why I wanted a judicial inquiry into the
matter to begin with. In the absence of that, it is left to the
students to try to find a way to infiltrate the very corridors of
power in this country.
What that means is issuing subpoenas, understanding what
subpoenas mean, understanding the time limits under which they
can be served and understanding the rules under which they can be
served.
I dare say few members of this House understand those rules.
There are many lawyers who do not practice courtroom litigation.
I dare say many of them would not understand the rules.
In the absence of legal counsel for those students, they are
left to figure out the very complex rules of getting documents
that the government will say are protected by cabinet secrecy,
mark my words. It will say that and it is left to the students to
figure out how to launch an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada
to open the door to get those documents.
Those students will have to figure that out because they do not
have a lawyer but the lawyers for the government will know the
ways to close those doors before they are even open. I think
that is the answer to the hon. member's question.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let
us be clear here. What we have before us is an issue where the
students are the ones who are launching the complaint against the
RCMP.
What would have happened if, for example, the RCMP did not take
the controlled action it took at the demonstration in order to
ensure the security of our guests attending the conference?
The gentlemen on the opposite side would have been the first
ones up in the House to attack the government for not ensuring
the safety and security of those who were here as our guests.
This is a tremendous waste of our democratic process. These
guys are standing up and trying to milk what I believe is an
important issue for political expediency, nothing more, nothing
less.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, there are two
underlying assumptions I think Canadians need to recognize.
Regarding the first point made by the hon. member, the students
are the ones who lodged the complaint. Why in the name of God
should they have legal counsel? The underlying assumption in that
question is that those who dare to challenge authority ought not
to receive the support of the state in that challenge. The
underlying assumption is don't dare question those with pepper
spray because you have no right to and certainly the state will
not protect you.
Second, he said what would happen if there was no protection.
The RCMP is perfectly capable of providing protection. The Prime
Minister's office is not an expert in that area.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to rise in the House today to join with my
colleagues from the NDP in speaking to our opposition day motion
that really is a very important question. It has taken up an
enormous amount of time in the House over the past few weeks.
The reason for bringing forward this motion today is to simply,
as my colleague from Sydney—Victoria and other members of our
caucus have outlined, put the question fair and square to the
members of the House that the student complainants at the public
complaints inquiry commission have a right to receive independent
legal representation.
The question before the House today is that straightforward and
that simple.
1535
I was in my riding of Vancouver East last week. It was not
surprising to me that wherever I went and whatever discussions I
had on many topics, the issue of the complaints inquiry came up.
Everywhere I went, whether it was talking to seniors, students,
unemployed people or community members, this issue came up. To
hear government members today dismiss this motion and this issue
as something that is politically expedient in terms of the
opposition raising this issue tells me that government members
have already closed their ears. They have stopped listening to
what the people of Canada have to say.
After several weeks of questioning in the House, last Friday all
of Canada was waiting to hear whether the solicitor general would
finally agree that the students must have legal representation
and the funding for that to happen. When the announcement was
made and we heard the solicitor general's weak and very limp
response, it was a shock. Many of us expected that this was an
opportunity for the government to set the record straight and to
begin to do the right thing. It was a huge disappointment after
two requests from the commission the solicitor general told the
House that we have to have faith in that he refused the two
requests from the commission for independent funding.
It raises the question of the conflict of interest that the
solicitor general is now in. On October 9 I along with my
colleague raised in the House the question that the solicitor
general had to acknowledge the conflict which he had placed
himself in and the jeopardy that he had created for the process
he had defended in the House. The conflict of interest and the
fact that the very students he is denying funding to are the
students who want to call him as a witness is a very serious
conflict that has yet to be addressed.
It is important to go back and look at what has caused us to be
at this incredible juncture today which is one of the most
important questions we have considered in this parliament. We
have to remember that the reason students were protesting
democratically, the reason they were protesting peacefully and
the reason they were exercising their democratic rights was their
concern around the APEC summit in Vancouver last November.
I along with my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and other
members and activists attended the peoples summit to express our
very deep concern about the role the Canadian government was
playing in hosting foreign leaders who not only deny and violate
human rights in their countries but who were coming together to
promote a system of a capital intensive marketplace that
supersedes all human needs and human rights. That is why those
students were protesting. That is why those students were
holding up their little signs on the way to UBC. They were
really putting their point on the record. The travesty that has
unfolded since that time has dug us deeper and deeper into a
situation where now we seriously question the honour and the
credibility of this government in what it really stands for.
How many times have we heard the Prime Minister get up and say
he is here defending the rights of young people or Canada has a
good track record on human rights? Here is the proof, here and
now today in terms of this public complaints commission inquiry.
This is where Canadians make the determination as to whether we
stand for democracy, whether we stand in defence of those
students or whether we are about to abandon those rights. The
government has made it clear where it stands.
Last September I was very fortunate to be a part of a delegation
hosted by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation.
It visited two of the countries that are living the consequences
of what APEC and trade liberalization are all about.
I visited Indonesia and Thailand and saw for myself, along with
other members of parliament and members of the NGO and
international community, the devastation of what the so-called
economic miracle in trade liberalization has been in those two
countries.
1540
It was very ironic after meeting students in Indonesia who have
led the struggle there for democracy and economic and social
reform at great personal risk as many of them have been jailed to
come back to Canada and learn that the public complaints
commission inquiry was beginning and that security here had been
used as a cover to suppress the political and democratic
expression against students who were exposing the same situation
in Indonesia.
Very often we think that what we hold dear in this country is
something that maybe we take for granted. I think we learned
that day in November that we can see a government that becomes
incredibly arrogant through the decision of a Prime Minister and
that interference at a political level can violate those
democratic rights and basically trample on young people who are
trying to defend their rights here and to speak out against
dictators like Mr. Suharto and other thugs who have suppressed
their own people's rights. I think it was a very sad irony that
that sort of situation exists.
As this story unfolds and as the government digs itself deeper
and deeper into a situation that it seems unable to recover from,
one of the most disappointing things has been to see the role
that the Prime Minister has taken on. We had the first joke last
November, a totally inappropriate comment. The Prime Minister
did not learn from that. He went on to a second and a third
joke. Even in the House we have now heard comments about
baseball bats and water cannons. It really is a very serious
matter and it is something that Canadians do not want to hear
jokes about.
The Prime Minister continues to trivialize and make light of the
very serious protest that these students undertook and their
seriousness in trying to bring this complaint. They have had a
complete lack of support from the government. That the
government is doing its very best and spending a ton of money to
undermine the process is something that really is very
dishonourable in the House. It brings a great deal of shame on
us.
I remember listening to Mr. Nelson Mandela in the House in
September. It was a day when we remembered the honour that
Canada had brought in the struggle to end apartheid. Yet very
sadly it was also a day when we were in the midst of this crisis
of a government that was unable to see what the right thing was
in supporting these students and making sure we have a proper
inquiry that is not undermined but will seriously get at the
truth.
This motion today is very simple and straightforward. We would
like to ask who on the government side will stand up and defend
democracy and affirm that we are here in the House to represent
the people of Canada and to defend democracy. It is not to
protect a government when it has botched a job and it is not to
defend a Prime Minister who is absolutely wrong and callous in
his regard for people's human and legal rights.
The question is straightforward. Will the House agree and will
Liberal members to have the courage to stand up and say that it
is not too late to change a grievous wrong to those students and
the people of Canada and to make sure that inquiry, limited as it
is, will at least enable those students to get a fair shot at
getting their case heard and having their complaints fairly
heard? We have called for a full judicial inquiry. We ask the
government members to have the courage to support this motion.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the member for her remarks.
She said she visited some of the countries represented at the
APEC summit and had seen the economic devastation that trade had
brought to those countries.
1545
It is unfortunate that she took the focus off what is a pretty
broad consensus about the need for due process in these hearings.
The vast majority of people who live in places like Thailand,
Indonesia and Singapore would agree that while they are going
through an enormous economic turmoil currently, their standard of
living has increased exponentially over the last 20 years as a
result of international trade. Many tens of millions of people
have been lifted out of poverty because of the benefits of trade
notwithstanding the current structural difficulties.
While I am sympathetic to the case for legal counsel for the
students, the member painted a picture of them as completely
altruistic, innocent students expressing their belief in
democracy. We know that was certainly the case in many
instances. In fact I have carried picket signs outside the
Chinese embassy protesting the presence of Jiang Zemin. I joined
many people in that moral outrage about human rights abuses.
Surely the member would admit that we should not prejudge the
inquiry and that there were some students or even non-students
who were members of groups such as the International Socialist
Workers Party and other radical organizations who were clearly
there to disrupt the summit, posing a security threat and tearing
down a security wall separating them from heads of states.
Surely the member would recognize a balanced perspective here,
that while there were some legitimate protesters there may also
have been at the same time some people who unduly provoked the
police.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, in reply to the first
part of the member's comments and question in terms of my visit
to Indonesia and Thailand, I raised that because it is important
for us to understand what it was that the students and a very
diverse part of the community in Vancouver and across Canada were
protesting and voicing their concern about in terms of the APEC
gathering.
Having just come back from those countries I can tell the hon.
member it is simply untrue that there are millions of people who
were lifted out of poverty as a result of trade liberalization.
Quite the contrary is true. Those economies are now in complete
shatters. There are people who are facing unemployment, hunger
and devastation.
I believe these issues are related. We have to understand that
there was huge concern in Canada about Canada's role in promoting
this kind of unfettered market force and movement of capital that
are basically put ahead of what are urgent and human needs.
On the point about there being some people who did something
wrong and that maybe some of the students were protesting in a
way that was acceptable but others were not and broke the law, I
am not aware of instances where there were any protesters who
broke the law or in any way threatened the security of the
visiting leaders.
One of the disgusting things about the APEC summit is that the
word security was used as a cover to basically deny people the
right to protest in a democratic and open society. Whether it is
the socialist workers party or students at UBC or anti-poverty
activists in my own riding of Vancouver East, people were
exercising their democratic rights.
Frankly I am surprised to hear the member from the Reform Party
raise that as though somehow those actions were not in order.
They in no way threatened the security of the leaders or the
summit itself. To state that is simply false.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.
The motion before us introduced by the NDP and then a few
minutes later amended by another NDP member suggests to me that
it was a motion not introduced in earnest to come to the very
fundamental issue before us.
During debate, for example, by the mover of the motion and by
the next speaker from the NDP, about 75% or 80% of their debate
was spent on making allegations about the facts of the case.
What is curious is that out of all those allegations the speakers
then concluded that their allegations were true.
1550
Where is the fairness in the process if that is the process we
were to follow? We cannot make allegations and at the same time
be judge and jury. I question the agenda of the party that
introduced the motion.
The other opposition members during debate alluded that this
thing was done at the behest of the Prime Minister. Again it was
another allegation. Then they concluded that it was a fact.
Making conclusions before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission
has had a chance to thoroughly, carefully and thoughtfully
consider the allegations is a process we should not pursue.
The motion does not tell us by how much we should fund the
students, at what rate of legal fees per hour and for how long?
No limits were mentioned. I do not think the member who
introduced the motion was very serious about it.
May I remind all members that when the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Public Complaints Commission was established by the House
of Commons, the Parliament of Canada did not in its wisdom at the
time provide for a particular mechanism of funding citizens who
lodge complaints against the RCMP. Why was it that those
opposition members, particularly the member who introduced the
motion, a veteran of parliament, did not in his wisdom at the
time introduce an amendment when the act was being debated in the
House 12 years ago? Why all of a sudden now? Should we call
this political opportunism? I will leave it to the judgment of
the people.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that this commission is
entrusted in section 46, subsection (2) which states:
All proceedings before a board shall be dealt with by the board
as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and
considerations of fairness permit.
There is no formality needed as in a court of law. We do not
have to know the specific and very delicate rules of evidence. We
do not have to know the rules of procedures of the commission.
The commission is a friend of the Canadian citizenry at large.
When we have allegations during debate of the information before
the Canadian public, for the opposition to conclude that these
allegations are conclusions of fact when they are only
allegations in a very real sense is trying to impugn not only the
credibility, the integrity and the honour of the people affected
but the integrity of the commission itself.
I have faith in the commission. I once served on the Winnipeg
Police Commission for three years before I entered parliament. I
have appeared before quasi-judicial bodies, before the labour
board and the Winnipeg compensation board although it is under
provincial jurisdiction. I have appeared before the UI board. I
have appeared before the UI referee presided by Justice Muldoon
of the Federal Court of Canada serving as an umpire. I have
appeared before the CPP tribunal as a member of parliament. I
have appeared before the immigration appeal board.
When one appears before quasi-judicial bodies the tribunal
members are friends of the citizens at large. They are truly
there to serve the cause of justice and truth. I can say in all
modesty that in my three years with the Winnipeg Police
Commission before I entered this hallowed House I pursued the
sense of justice and the search for truth. I did not need the
argument of lawyers before me.
Let me remind hon. members that during those hearings when
complaints were against the government, the government side was
represented by lawyers. We had cases which we won for citizens
at large and we had cases where we found the complaints were
groundless.
That is the mandate of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.
1555
The report issued in June 1998 states that the commission,
referring to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, acts in the
public interest both to protect human rights and to protect RCMP
officers from groundless accusations of improper conduct. In
other words what we have here is that the commission will see to
it that the rights of the accused will be balanced with the
rights of the complainant.
Since these students are the complainants in this instance they
can articulate their intuition. They can articulate their
thoughts. They can articulate their arguments. They can present
their facts, and the commission will be there to guide them in
that direction.
The same report states on page 2 that the commission should not
be fettered by the kind of precise rules that govern criminal and
civil trials. This is not about a civil trial. It is not about
a criminal proceeding. It also states that timeliness and
efficiency contribute to the credibility of our response, in
other words of the commission's response to public complaints.
We have here a process, a body created by the House of
Parliament, to see to it that we search for the truth and that we
establish and secure justice for all.
What we have heard so far is a rush by opposition members to
score some political points. I do not blame them because they
are in opposition and that is part of our parliamentary system. I
do not blame them at all for raising the issue, but let us see
the perspective in totality. I can assure members that the
commission is truly an independent commission.
The commission counsel stated on several occasions that all
efforts would be made to ensure that all relevant evidence would
be heard by the panel and that the participants would be seen
through the evidence, would be taken to the evidence and would be
asked about it in advance and that they would have a say again
after cross-examination of witnesses.
The chair of the public complaints commission says that it will
follow the evidence where it leads and that the scope of the
investigation will be broad.
Just in case members have some doubts that the scope of the
investigation will be broad and in case it has missed the
attention of members, page 10 of the June 1998 report states that
after the demonstrations at the University of British Columbia
during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference in
November 199 the commission received a large number of complaints
about the conduct of certain RCMP officers who were involved in
those events and as a consequence has established this public
inquiry.
I am convinced we will have the truth and we will have justice.
A Winnipeg editorial of October 15, 1998 states that the
complainants were trying to use the inquiry to humiliate the
Prime Minister and to pursue a purely political agenda in
opposition to aspects of Canadian foreign policy, that the
federal government is being asked to pay for the lawyer as long
as the inquiry continues, and that it would be perfectly
reasonable to make the complainants pay their own lawyer to
defend their own private interests in the process they have
initiated.
I equally wish that we have the conclusion of the inquiry, but
let us not prejudge its proceedings. Let us wait for the
results. Let us wait for the recommendations and then and only
thereafter can we truly make our fair comments.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I bring to
the attention of the government that the whole process
surrounding APEC has been unfair. There were $57 million funded
for APEC and $200,000 for the people's summit. Here we have at
least seven state funded lawyers lined up against the students
with no lawyers.
1600
I listened to the solicitor general say that this process was
meant to be fair, informal and accessible to the general public
and that a legal representation would not necessarily be needed.
However, in a situation where the students have no legal
representation and are faced with seven lawyers, it is no longer
accessible, equal or fair. I would like to see the government
make it a fair process.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I did not hear any
question but I did hear comments and I would like to respond to
them.
I have noted that the RCMP receives on average 1,000 complaints
a year. If we would follow the formula of funding that is being
implied in this case, we ought to be funding to the tune of about
$6 million.
Where were opposition members with respect to the citizens who
appeared before other quasi-judicial tribunals? Where were they?
Were citizens aggrieved about the CPP handicapped by not having a
lawyer? How about the citizen who appeared before the UI board?
How about the citizen who appeared before the veterans board?
When I hear opposition members speak only to this issue on
behalf of citizens I question the integrity of their agenda.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to be speaking from
both sides of his mouth. The students were merely exercizing the
civil right to express disagreement, which has been recognized
for as long as there has been a Canada, a Quebec, a New France.
This was all planned ahead of time. Along with the big cans of
pepper spray came out wet towels to wipe off one's eyes. On the
one hand, the government plans to invest more than $2 billion in
millennium scholarships for our young people in Canada and
Quebec. Nothing is too good for our youth to ring in the new
millennium.
On the other hand, as the end of this millennium nears, actions
are being taken here, in Canada, that were unheard of in a
democracy, actions that only Russia, Iraq or Iran would have
taken. And they are refusing to provide a few million dollars so
that recognized lawyers can be hired for the students. This is
scandalous, from a government that claims to be democratic and
to respect civil rights.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I would readily
spend any extra money we have and would suggest that the
government spend it on scholarships for students.
The situation here is not as painted by the opposition. We will
be able to arrive at the truth. We will be able to get the facts
because we have a public body, the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission, which has a solid record of 12 years of credibility
and integrity in producing results. The commission had found in
the past some isolated cases of excessive use of force. I have
faith in this body being able to arrive at the truth.
It does not need any counsel because those cases in the past did
not have legal counsel. On those 1,000 cases every year, where
were opposition members? Did they ask for funding for those
1,000 citizens every year? Where were they?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to take the time allotted to me to lay out
some basic facts about the public complaints commission and its
mandate.
1605
In the debate swirling around the APEC issue some very basic
facts have been lost which do point to a reasonable and earnest
government effort to have all the facts come out.
We have to begin with the creation of the public complaints
commission by parliament in 1988. It was deliberately designed
as a civilian and independent organization, not part of the RCMP.
It reports to parliament through the solicitor general although I
remain at arm's length. In fact I tabled the commission's most
recent annual report which shows that each year Canadians make
approximately 1,000 complaints against the RCMP of which about
300 a year are the subject of independent investigations.
The public complaints commission was created by parliament in
1988 to act in the public interest when complaints are lodged
against the RCMP. I stress the words act in the public interest.
These are extremely important words because they go to the heart
of the raison d'être of the commission. The commission is there
to act for Canadians. The commission has very competent members
and they have always conducted themselves with impartiality and
integrity.
There is no doubt in the government's mind that the commission
panel made up of very talented and skilled members can get to the
bottom of the issue to the satisfaction of Canadians. Why are
there legal counsel at the hearings? First, they represent RCMP
members who can face consequences to their careers because of the
hearings. They are compelled to attend and testify and anything
they say can be used against them in the future. The
complainants face no such consequences.
Moreover, the government counsel present are there to assist the
panel, helping it to deal with the considerable documentation
related to APEC in a timely and efficient manner. Finally, one
should remember that the counsel will represent the interest of
the government keeping in mind that a class action suit has been
brought on behalf of some of the complainants.
The panel certainly has the resources to carry out its mandate
in support of the special public interest hearing. The three
able panellists are served by a chief counsel, two assistant
counsel and three investigators who have assiduously to comb
through the documents, help prepare the panel and direct the
examination of witnesses in a fair and responsible manner in
search of the facts. It is this apparatus that serves the public
interest in getting to the bottom of the issue, and get to the
bottom of the issue it will.
Members of this team have been hard at work for some months now
in preparation for these hearings. They have an impressive
number and variety of witness to ensure all sides of the story
are examined. Witness from the RCMP, the complainants including
the University of British Columbia, and from the government will
all be examined in an exhaustive search for the truth.
As I have said, the government has provided $650,000 in
additional funding to ensure the commission can undertake the
hearings properly and that the government will continue to fund
the panel. What we need here is to have everyone give the
hearing process a chance to work. The commission panel has
begun. Let it carry on.
This is not to be an adversarial hearing. It is not a court of
law. It is a hearing in the public interest not governed by the
precise rules that govern criminal and civil trials. This
relative informality is the great thing about the process under
the public complaints commission.
Parliament deliberately did not intend for the public complaints
commission panel process to be a criminal court. It is a fact
finding body. All the issues raised by the complainants will be
dealt with by the hearing. Most important, the commission and
the panel have emphasized in no uncertain terms that witnesses
will be treated fairly and with dignity. The panel has the
specific authority and mandate to see to it that all parties are
treated fairly. I think that has been well demonstrated so far.
Over the course of its existence the public complaints
commission has distinguished itself and the government has
confidence in this process, if only others would stop undermining
it through excessive rhetoric and prejudgment. It has an
international reputation for dealing with complaints seriously
and effectively. It is a made in Canada model for giving
Canadians an arm's length, independent method of examining their
complaints.
It is obviously the government's view that the lawyers for the
complainants should not be funded by taxpayers. I do not think
that the members opposite have a full appreciation of the
arguments outlined in my letter to the public complaints panel on
October 16.
I would like now to revisit some of these arguments to provide
some substance to the debate. In this letter I wrote:
As I stated in my earlier letter, the PCC was established in 1988
by parliament to represent the public interest in relation to
complaints by the public against the RCMP. Since then, the PCC
has distinguished itself by treating members of the public
appearing before it with respect and fairness as well as dealing
effectively with complaints brought before it.
The government believes the panel's work is important and has
expressed public confidence for the process on a number of
occasions.
It also believes that the panel, with the assistance of
commission counsel, has the necessary authority and means to
carry out its mandate with integrity. As a result, the
government endorses the view expressed in your letter that all
parties appearing before the panel will be treated with dignity
and fairness.
Finally, the government is of the view that the panel can
address all the complaints before it in an open and thorough
manner without the need for the government to provide funding for
legal counsel to complainants.
As you know, further to the commission's request, the government
recently provided the PCC with additional resources in the amount
of $650,000 to support the panel's work. The government will
continue to provide the commission with the necessary means to
complete its inquiry.
For all the reasons stated above, the government believes that
the panel continues to enjoy the full confidence of Canadians and
we await your findings and recommendations.
1610
If hon. members would step back a minute and reflect, they would
see that they are indeed taking a very short term view of the
issue that only serves to undermine an institution and a process
that is tailor made to deal with the issue at hand.
I believe I am right in my decision. It is the right decision
in terms of the proper governance of our institutions in Canada.
It is the right decision in terms of not having an adverse impact
on several other government departments and agencies.
Let us let them do their work.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have listened to the solicitor general. Let me say no
one has done more, unfortunately, to undermine the commission
than the solicitor general himself with his comments on the
possible outcome of the commission and then his failure to fund.
I want to ask the minister a very important question about the
issue of funding. The Federal Court of Canada has said that the
commission does not have the authority to extend funds to the
student complainants. It was very clear on that. It quoted from
section 45 of the RCMP Act.
The solicitor general has given money, $650,000. Does the
commission in his view have the authority to use that $650,000 or
the additional fund that he is talking about for legal aid for
the student complainants at the APEC inquiry? Does it have the
authority, according to his understanding as the solicitor
general responsible for this act, to use those funds in that way?
Yes or no.
Hon. Andy Scott: Madam Speaker, the federal court has
been quite clear on that. The important feature here is the fact
that the counsel to the commission is in a position to facilitate
the exercise.
We need to keep in mind in this whole debate the fact that the
complaints commission was established very specifically to allow
Canadians the opportunity in an informal way to have access to a
process that was not intimidating and that would encourage them
to come forward. I think that is exactly the way it was
structured and is the reason the additional funds were made
available to the commission and would be used by the counsel to
the commission to facilitate the exercise.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, the
Solicitor General has not answered the question. I will be
brief. He says he has confidence in the process and the
commission, which is extremely credible. So why is he rejecting
the request made twice by the commission that he provide help
for the complainants in this matter? Twice now the Solicitor
General has refused to pay. In this particular case, the
complaint is special.
1615
Here again, I repeat: $650,000 more for the commission. This
has never happened since the commission's inception. Twice the
commission has asked the Solicitor General to pay for the
students. The federal court has spoken. A slew of lawyers is
being paid at huge cost. I hope the Solicitor General will tell
us how much that costs, especially the travel back and forth
between Ottawa and Vancouver. Why is the Solicitor General
refusing to help the complainants?
Is the Prime Minister telling him what to do or is the Solicitor
General big enough to say “Yes, I will help the complainants?”
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott: Madam Speaker, I made the decision last
Thursday and communicated it to the panel last Friday.
It was a very considered decision, one that included
consideration of the large numbers of wards and tribunals, not
just with the federal government but with the provincial
governments as well which might be affected by the precedent that
would be set.
It was my judgment that the best way to allow the complainants
to exercise the opportunity to lay a complaint in this case and
to do it in a way that could be done in the future was to
recognize the need for additional funds to deal with this
particular case and to make those funds available to counsel. I
was assured in the letter of request from the panel members that
they believed the process could go ahead fairly and with dignity
for the complainants.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the solicitor general is in the unique position to be
able to answer my colleague's question from Burnaby about the
$650,000 given to the commission.
Is it his view that the commission can give staff, legal help,
support for the complainants, independent of Mr. Considine—
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Why independent?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Because they require independence in
order to get the job done.
In his judgment can the commission use some of the $650,000 for
legal assistance for the students? We need a simple yes or no.
Hon. Andy Scott: Madam Speaker, as I said, the federal
court has spoken on the authority of the counsel.
The reality is that the commission counsel exists specifically
to assist the complainants. Having additional revenues
available, which is our decision, makes it easier for the
commission counsel to do his work and be more easily facilitated.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would ask the House for unanimous consent, because of
the importance of this particular issue, to extend the questions
and comments portion of the debate at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
asking for additional time, if I understand him correctly, to ask
more questions of the solicitor general.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is not
unanimous consent.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, with
your permission, I will be sharing my time on this very
important issue with the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
We were very honoured, or almost, by the presence of the
Solicitor General in the House for a few minutes. Once again,
however, it is apparent that the Solicitor General has more
answers to questions when he is in an airplane, or a gym with a
towel wrapped around his waist, than in the House. It is a
little bit unfortunate, but I would rather see the Solicitor
General in his suit, here in the House, even if he does not
answer my questions, than in a gym.
The important thing is that the government has been telling us
for weeks that we must put trust in the commission, in the
process, in the commission's credibility. Our problems are not
with the commission.
1620
The commission itself admits, in two letters it sent to the
Solicitor General, that in the interests of legal fairness to
the complainants and of credibility in this exceptional
situation, the students should be given legal financial
assistance.
The government, probably the Prime Minister, told the Solicitor
General: “Now listen, you are not paying for the students.
Figure your own way out of that. It is your turn at the bat.”
It is as clear as that. He comes and wastes our time in the
House by trying to use up his full 10 minutes and saying almost
nothing.
The commission is important. There is fear of creating a
precedent. I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary here
in this House this morning talking about setting precedents, and
all that. The precedent has been set. First, provisions of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being attacked.
That is one precedent. The second is that an additional
$650,000 is being given to the commission. This has never been
done before. And nearly a year of preparation for the hearings.
That too has never been seen before.
Lawyers are hired, not legal aid lawyers working for minimum
wage. A whole gang of lawyers traipsing from Ottawa to
Vancouver and probably earning hundreds of dollars an hour. I
have no problem with their earning a good living, but I do have
a problem with their being allowed to travel from Ottawa to
Vancouver.
Vancouver is a very fine city, but could the students there not
also be helped to defend themselves properly?
This process is tainted with political influence. Everyone
knows this, but the other side of this House will not admit it.
There is fear of creating a precedent but, I repeat, the
precedent has been set by the Prime Minister's political
intervention at the APEC summit, via the RCMP.
A precedent has been set by the Prime Minister's buffoonery
about the events in Vancouver. Only someone as foolish as those
on the other side of this House could say everything is just
fine and make ridiculous comparisons, like the reference to
baseball bats. The Prime Minister may not be Mark McGwire but
the Solicitor General does bear some resemblance to a baseball
catcher, as he is the one who always ends up with the ball.
This must stop. It is a matter of credibility.
The Solicitor General said it. For weeks now he has been
discussing this issue with the Prime Minister and with cabinet
members. He talks about it to everyone, but he refuses to
discuss it in this House. He is probably not comfortable with
parliamentary immunity in this House. We should all go sit on
the lawn in front of the Parliament buildings, and perhaps we
would get real answers to our questions.
This is unacceptable. Of course, it is a poor analogy, but it
would not be the first time that administrative tribunals or
quasi-judicial bodies have helped complainants. It may not be
comparable from a strictly administrative point of view, but it
is important.
The National Energy Board gave money to aboriginals, because
they did not have the means to challenge the pipeline route.
This is a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal.
When it was discovered that female prisoners in Kingston had
been subjected to treatments that were in clear violation of
human rights, they received financial assistance. Salaries paid
to inmates are rather low. They receive some money every week
for the canteen, but that is all. So, these women got some help.
Nobody objected to that. Nobody said “we are setting a
precedent. We are now going to have to fund prisoners to go
after police officers and prison guards and spark riots in all
the jails”. Nobody said that. This was done once, and it was an
excellent decision.
It is the first time that the RCMP complaints commission has to
deal with such an important case. It is the first time that
students, who simply wanted to show that they did not appreciate
having dictators come to Canada, were charged in such a brutal
manner.
This is very disturbing. Apparently, the Prime Minister and the
Solicitor General talk to each other several times a day about
this issue. We hope the Prime Minister will tell the Solicitor
General “Listen, enough is enough. Go back to the dressing room
for a few months. We will make a substitution. There will no
longer be any political interference regarding what happened to
the students at the APEC summit”.
1625
I hope our Liberal colleagues will support the NDP motion. The
member for Vancouver Quadra, for example, former secretary to
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, supported the request. The
B.C. Liberals also agree that the students should get help.
Things are being blocked here in Ottawa at the PMO.
I do not understand. I hope all the members, back and front
benchers alike, will support the motion to defend the most
important thing in this country: fundamental rights. I hope
they will.
I would like to ask the member opposite to consult his
colleagues and the people from British Columbia.
It would be a good thing if the Liberal Party agreed to support
the NDP motion to prevent abuse of the most fundamental rights.
I also hope that the members will tell the public and the
students why they think the students do not need financial help
to pay their lawyer. Talk about legal balance! It is totally
disgusting.
So, that said, I sincerely hope that, in future discussions on
fundamental rights and the Canadian Constitution, the Prime
Minister does not go bragging about having signed the charter of
rights. He did not invent the wheel either. The Bill of Rights
existed under Diefenbaker.
The Prime Minister is gloating over
that, but showing no respect for those whose charter rights have
been trampled.
This is very serious. The Prime Minister is breaking his oath
to uphold the Canadian Constitution and all the related
provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I hope that the student plaintiffs in Vancouver will get all
Canadians and all Quebeckers to understand and accept their
message so that this situation will never recur. One of the
ways to ensure that it never happens again is for the
back-benchers, the front-benchers, and those in between, to
support the NDP motion.
If the government has managed to find close to three-quarters of
a million dollars to fly lawyers off to one of the most
beautiful cities in the country, Vancouver, I believe it could
have given 25 cents on the dollar, as the saying goes, to the
students. It could give the students just one-fourth of what it
is spending on its lawyers' hourly fees and expenses for
accommodation, transportation and so on.
That would be a beginning, but it refuses to do so.
There is no bottom to the pockets of the government and the RCMP
when it comes to the number of lawyers it can afford to send to
the commission of inquiry. This makes sure the plaintiffs will
be at a total disadvantage.
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, I state my support for the motion put forward by the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona. Since our return to the House of
Commons on September 21 we have watched daily how the government
has continuously fumbled the ball with regard to the APEC
inquiry.
[Translation]
Things are definitely going from bad to worse, for what value do
Canadians hold more sacred than freedom of speech? It seems
that what matters most in this instance is, instead, protecting
the Prime Minister's reputation.
In the fall of 1997, the Prime Minister gave orders for
repression of the students. It is now obvious, a year later,
that he has not learned any lesson from this. His repression of
the students continues.
This time pepper spray is not being used. Now the principles of
natural justice are going by the board.
1630
While the government is arming itself with an impressive
collection of lawyers, the students are left to their own
devices, the excuse being that they are the complainants in the
case and that there is therefore no obligation to pay for their
lawyers.
In fact, at the very time it was refusing to cover the students'
legal fees, the government had just engaged three additional
lawyers. It has also retained the services of an expensive
public relations outfit to do something about its tarnished
image.
But it continues to tell us it is unable to cover the students'
legal fees. There is something very hollow sounding about the
government's arguments. It is as though it were trying to
convince us there was no such precedent in the Canadian legal
system.
Has it forgotten the court challenges program? This is a
program that allows individuals to challenge the actions of
various levels of government when they are inconsistent with the
provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Why can the government not take a page from this program and
provide the students with adequate representation before the
commission? What is it afraid of? In my opinion, those
involved are afraid of damaging their almighty reputation. What
they do not realize is that, with each passing day, each new
allegation, and each attempt to cover up the truth, their
reputation is slipping ever lower in Canadians' eyes.
The proof is in the editorial pages across the nation. Already
they are calling for the solicitor general's resignation. There
are plenty of other examples of newspapers handing down the
verdict of Canadians.
Does the solicitor general really think that denying the
students funding will improve his reputation with the public?
And what about the Prime Minister's reputation?
[English]
The recent cover story in Maclean's in my opinion clearly
points out what is wrong with this government. The problems it
has incurred are directly related to the actions of the Prime
Minister. In the article Donald Savoie of the University of
Moncton, who has recently finished conducting interviews with
past and present cabinet ministers for his upcoming book,
concludes that our national institutions, starting with
parliament, and I will include cabinet, are in bad shape. They
are being bypassed.
What is slowly being revealed is the existence of our own
dictatorship right here in the Prime Minister's office. We have
watched the Prime Minister from go from not knowing what pepper
spray was to being something he puts on his plate. He then makes
the weakest of apologies and goes on to declare only a few days
later that he was happy to have pepper spray instead of rubber
chicken.
Yesterday he floored Canadians when he went on to say that the
pepper spray victims were lucky that they were not beaten with
baseball bats.
Pepper spray is a banned substance in Canada. It is illegal to
bring it across the border from the United States. Women can no
longer purchase it to protect themselves. Yet the Prime Minister
feels it was civilized and appropriate for the dispersal of a
gathering of non-violent protesters on a university campus.
Plain common sense would tell us that those remarks were
inappropriate. However, the Prime Minister makes no apologies.
I conclude he must believe he is above that.
The students have been victimized in the affirmation of their
charter of rights. Now the solicitor general has victimized them
again by refusing the commission's second request for funding of
legal representation for the complainants. The common sense
approach to this would be to either provide both parties with
legal representation or to have both parties appear before the
commission without legal representation.
1635
Day after day the solicitor general has told this House in
question period that he has every confidence in the commission to
find the truth. He states we should let it do its work.
Meanwhile, the commission has told him not once but twice that
it requires funding for the students' legal representation. In
the commission's view this is needed for it to continue to do its
work in proper fashion.
We have seen some very courageous and sensible arguments today
on this motion. Common sense is something we have come to
realize is desperately lacking in the government today.
Our ancestors fought world wars and sacrificed their lives to
assure future generations of this country the freedom to express
their views without censorship. The power of freedom of
expression is a notion that came alive for us in this House when
we had the privilege of hearing Nelson Mandela's powerful words
only a few short weeks ago. It is sad to watch this hypocrisy
before us now.
The PC party was never afraid to face down a bully on this
planet. I take great pride in telling this House that my caucus
will not take a step backward from the bully who runs this
government today.
We have seen time and time again the Prime Minister and his
cabinet being guilty of abusing their powers of office. They
have gone on witch hunts in the Airbus allegations. They cancel
helicopter contracts only to purchase others, costing taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars for their partisan views.
More recently we have seen the way they act by whipping their
backbenchers to vote down the full compensation to the hepatitis
C victims. We have seen them shuffle those within their own
ranks for speaking up for Canadians, for speaking up for the very
people who put us here. They spoke in the context of common
sense and were then gagged for doing the right thing. The
bullying arrogance of the government has become its greatest
curse. Canadians are beginning to see the true colours of this
government.
This motion does not ask the government to admit any wrongdoing.
However, it does appeal to all in the House today to grant the
commission its request to a level playing field. Let us give the
students the funding they need to present their case. Let us all
use our common sense and do the right thing. Let us allow the
complaints commission to do its work in seeking the truth.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Progressive Conservative Party for
its support on the NDP's opposition motion today. I have just
one simple question for the member.
Two questions were asked to the solicitor general earlier in our
debating back and forth about whether in his opinion the $650,000
which was recently allocated to the commission could go toward
funding the legal assistance for those students. I would just
like to get the member's opinion about this.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, certainly some of this money
should go to the students.
When we look at big government today we see that it is certainly
represented by legal assistance and has qualified for legal aid,
but our own Canadian students who are unemployed, have little
revenue and are facing high debts when they exit university are
faced with borrowing money to have good representation.
1640
I find the government certainly should compensate these people
and make sure there is a level playing field at the commission
and all parties are equally represented. If they are not going to
give representation to these students, they should not give
representation to anybody else on this commission.
The Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, employment insurance; the hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche, the APEC summit; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Riviere-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the
millennium scholarship fund.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak against the motion proposed by my
colleague across the House for many reasons, one of which is
because this motion is purely and simply politically motivated
and partisan in nature. It is not in the public interest and it
has created a lot of confusion throughout the country.
All my colleagues had to do was look to the solicitor general's
report on the public complaints commission which was tabled some
time ago in the House. I think if we were to have a close
examination of this report we would see that it speaks eloquently
to the important civilian oversight role the commission plays in
our society as a whole. This report discussed how important it is
to stay true to the form and function of its mandate as
parliament intended.
The introductory message from the chair is quite to the point in
this regard. Madame Heafey wrote:
Our role at the RCMP public complaints commission is to help to
maintain the harmonious relationship that must exist between the
public and the RCMP. The commission's primary mandate is to
ensure that the public complaints process is conducted with
impartiality and fairness both to members of the public and
members of the RCMP.
The chair goes on to say that the process can be too often
litigious, with the net effect being to restrict the benefits
that flow from the resolution of disputes, disagreements and
misunderstandings.
In her annual report the chair vows to focus more sharply on
effective results:
The commission must always seek the least formal and most
efficient options to resolve complaints, without compromising the
values of impartiality, fairness and transparency.
I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with one of
my colleagues.
It is this issue of the relative informality and less legalistic
approach to dealing with and resolving complaints that is so
important to the average Canadian. The commission can make
findings and recommendations based on a balance of probabilities,
not the criminal law standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is
this kind of pragmatic and practical approach that Canadians find
reasonable.
The commission chair writes:
Often, the commission, as a neutral third party, is able to
pinpoint the cause of disharmony between the public and the
police, with the result that both parties can acknowledge and
accommodate their differences.
1645
The chair of the public complaints commission goes on to say
that the commission is not a court of law. This is important for
my colleagues to hear:
Even in more challenging disputes, we must not lose sight of the
fact that the commission's public hearings are, essentially,
inquiries of public interest; the commission should not be
fettered by the kind of precise rules that govern criminal and
civil trials. Timeliness and efficiency contribute to the
credibility of our response.
Here in a nutshell is what is so important about the process,
one which would be adversely affected by injecting into it extra
counsel that is publicly funded.
The chair promises a revitalization that will in the year ahead
strengthen the commission's ability to make a positive and
constructive contribution to Canadian society.
I would like to remind my colleagues on the opposite side that
Canada is a very peaceful nation which places a premium on the
rule of law. Our police always respect this rule of law and the
value of human rights. The public has a high regard for the
police. One only has to compare public sentiment toward the
police in this country with that of other democratic countries
with roughly equivalent systems of government to see that we live
in one of the finest democracies in the world. We have the
finest police forces in the world at all levels, municipal,
provincial as well as federal.
As the commission pointed out in its annual report, complaints
about the RCMP normally arise from the stresses of policing.
Usually these issues are more about degrees of conduct than about
true violations of Canadian standards and values. This may or may
not be the case with the issue at hand, but it is clear that too
many of my colleagues are rushing to judgment. Society's
expectations of police are high and nowhere are they higher than
with the RCMP.
The RCMP, our federal police, also act as the provincial police
in eight of the ten provinces as well as the territories. The
RCMP has given Canadians exemplary police services over the
years. They are determined to maintain that high standard. That
is why the RCMP, as does the government, want this hearing to
take place, to be expedited and to come to its finding as soon as
possible.
I think that as Canadians watch the hearings in Vancouver take
place, they see a vital Canadian institution in full flower. They
see a comprehensive public hearing being conducted with rigour
and fairness by a very able panel assisted by very able staff.
The public sees a commission counsel who leads the witnesses
through their testimony, introduces documentary evidence,
protects the witnesses and explores all facets of the issue. The
public is getting the most exhaustive examination of the issue
possible.
Members should also be mindful that the commission initiated
this hearing. It was not at the government's request; the
government did not ask for this hearing. The commission decided
independently to undertake it on its own. Its finding will be
independent and unfettered by government influence. The
government cannot edit the report; the commission presents it as
its findings.
In short, let the commission do its work using the process put
in place by parliament. Let us not second guess its outcome, its
ability, nor its ambit. Let it follow the evidence and testimony
wherever it may lead, for the benefit of all Canadians, with the
ultimate aim of reconciliation.
1650
I do not want to belabour the issue but my colleagues on the
opposite side are trying to milk this issue for all its worth. It
is plain partisan politics, pure and simple. I find it shameful
for my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to stretch the
issue to that extent without full knowledge of the mandate and
responsibilities of the commission in its independent role.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member talk about justice
and democracy while we know full well that his entire party has
been whipped into opposing this motion tonight. If he believes
in democracy, why do the Liberals not hold a free vote on the
issue and allow the individual members of the Liberal government
to decide their fate?
The member talked about the RCMP and what a great job they are
doing. Yes, the RCMP do a wonderful job in this country. At the
same time, the Liberal government cuts funding to the RCMP, shuts
down the base in Regina for a period of time and continually
harasses police officers across the country with cutbacks to
their services, making their job more and more difficult.
The real problem in what the students did was that they did not
fight back. If the students had pepper sprayed the police, they
would have been charged before a court of law and their legal
fees would have been handled by the courts. They would have been
handled by the government of the day. Is he suggesting that in
the future if students are going to have peaceful protests, they
should resort to violence in order to have their legal fees
covered?
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, you heard it yourself. I have
never seen anyone so totally out of touch on the issue. It is my
colleagues in this party who are standing up now to speak. The
member's colleagues are undermining our democratic institutions
and our democratic process. They are the ones who are
undermining the ability of our police to do their work. They are
the ones who are taking the time of the House of Commons in order
to debate an issue we have gone through over and over again.
The commission is an independent body and not a court of law.
Any citizen has the right to appear before that commission and
have his or heard case heard.
Now the member is telling me that he wanted the students to
spray police. What a shameful suggestion for my colleague from
the New Democratic Party to make in this House. It is obvious he
is not serving the institution as well as he should be. Otherwise
he would have stood up and said that he would not make any
comments before the commission made its finding, that he would
not comment before the commission had a chance to hear the cases
and make its report to parliament. Frankly, the hon. member is
out to lunch.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it saddens me to hear this level of debate from that member. I
believe him to be an intelligent person. Therefore he must be
wilfully ignorant of the facts that surround this issue. He
chooses to ignore the fact that the people of Canada may deem
this to be a biased and unreliable commission which would be to
the chagrin of the commissioners.
I am fully supportive of the three people who are doing that job
against all the odds set up by this government, the solicitor
general and the Prime Minister. I am fully supportive of the
public complaints commission process. But the government has
chosen to fund the protection of the Prime Minister and the
Government of Canada with about $2,000 an hour of lawyer's fees
on one side. What fair minded Canadian cannot possibly arrive at
the very logical conclusion that this is stacked against the
protesters?
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where my
colleague got the information that the public has no faith in the
public complaints commission. It is the opposite. Canadians
have every faith in the public complaints commission.
Canadians have every faith in our democratic institutions. They
know that anybody who appears before this commission will have a
fair hearing. The counsel for the commission clearly stated that
he will assist the witnesses, that he will help them out in order
to make sure their case is heard before the commission.
1655
Frankly, and I said this a little earlier in a question to a
member of the NDP, had any mishap taken place at that meeting, my
colleagues from the Reform Party would have been the first ones
on their feet in this House trying to attack the government for
not providing security to our guests, dignitaries visiting our
country for this international meeting. They would have been the
first ones to stand and attack the government.
They cannot have it both ways. They have to let the police do
their work. This is a police initiative. The police are doing
what they have to do within the framework of the law in a most
comprehensive and humane way. Let them do their work. My
colleagues should back off and let the commission conduct its
hearing. They should stop yapping on this issue until such time
as we get a report.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this debate without any feeling of pleasure
whatsoever because I feel the debate has been a misuse of this
parliamentary forum. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker.
I sat during question period today and all the previous days
when the accusations were flying back and forth. There were
accusations that the Prime Minister had to apologize for
something no one knew for sure he had done or not, this kind of
thing. There were the attacks on the solicitor general for
having made some remarks in an airplane. I looked up at the
public gallery today and I saw a school group that had come to
watch parliament at work. They heard accusations, innuendoes,
catcalls and jeering. It was very loud. There were hardly any
questions of any substance.
Indeed on other occasions in this House all the questions have
been on this very subject of APEC and statements made by the
solicitor general, while all kinds of other issues, issues of
great importance to this country, have been ignored. We went
through a whole period in which this country was in dire jeopardy
because of the collapse of financial markets around the world. It
was a serious problem. I do not know about people on the
opposite side but I can say many on this side were thoroughly
frightened by what was happening in southeast Asia and Latin
America. And we are not past that crisis yet. There was not a
word in the House on that.
There was not a word about issues like hepatitis C. That was
such an issue with the Reform Party at one point and now it has
disappeared.
I am saddened because I remember. I must say that with respect
to the New Democratic Party, I expect nothing more of them and I
expect nothing more of the Conservatives either. This type of
tactic in the House of Commons was the hallmark of the NDP and
the Conservatives in the years before 1993. I will say at the
very least that one of the reasons parliament changed after 1993
was that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party really did come
here to try to make changes and try to bring dignity to
parliament.
In these past weeks this has all been lost. Now they sit there.
I am sorry there is not a school group in the House so that they
could see my colleagues opposite who have nothing more to do but
to catcall and heckle. They know I am speaking the truth and
they know they should be ashamed of themselves.
I will take another step along in this argument. One of the key
points in this argument was the fact that the member for Palliser
was sitting on an airplane and overheard a private conversation
that was occurring a few seats over from him. This has caused
great controversy in this House. The suggestion has been that
this has compromised the public complaints commission hearing
into the APEC situation.
I would suggest that the contempt that was shown for that
commission was shown by the member for Palliser who brought it up
in this House and made it a point of public debate. Had that
conversation remained private, the public complaints commission
never would have heard of any thoughts of the solicitor general.
I suggest it is the member for Palliser who ought to search his
conscience in compromising the public complaints commission.
When we talk about people talking out of school and being
recorded by their colleagues, let me say that walking down the
corridor last week I happened to encounter the member for
Kootenay—Columbia who is a Reform member.
1700
He expressed to me pleasure at the questions he was asking on
APEC. He said he was having such fun and that there was no
limitation on what he could do. There was not even any control
in his own party.
In other words, he did not tell me that he was doing something
he thought was important for the nation or he thought was really
exposing a problem with the Prime Minister or the government. He
said that he was having fun and that he was getting the Reform
Party's name in the media. That is what it is. It is a media
game.
I should point out that I know what I am talking about because I
spent many years in the media. Something I am disappointed about
that has occurred with my colleagues in the Reform Party, and
less so perhaps with the Bloquistes, is that they are talking
with the media and they are conducting question period in terms
of the type of headlines they hope to get rather than addressing
substantive issues.
I will give members a classic example. Yesterday in this House
we debated Bill C-54. This is important legislation that deals
with the privacy of individuals. This is legislation introduced
by the government that would set rules and regulations governing
the way private enterprises can disclose personal information
about the citizens of Canada.
This is important legislation. When I spoke I said that the
legislation had flaws and that it needed to be debated. The Bloc
Quebecois responded many times with very compelling arguments.
What is so very interesting about that debate is that if we look
at Hansard we will find that only one Reformer spoke. Only
one Conservative spoke. Most of the exchange occurred between
the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois.
Who cares about good governance in this country? Who cares
about the future of Canadians? It is the people who engage in
meaningful debate, not the hecklers, not the ones who can sense
an opportunity and go on the attack using innuendoes that have no
foundation in truth. People who engage in those tactics should
be ashamed.
I expect nothing more than that from the NDP and nothing more
than that from the Conservatives because they come from the
traditional parties that did nothing more. But I expected much
more from the Reform Party and I am disappointed. I think
members of the Bloc Quebecois have acquitted themselves quite
reasonably in this instance. At least they debate real
legislation.
Now I come to the issue of financing for lawyers for the
students who are appearing before the Public Complaints
Commission. Whatever happened to candour? What is wrong with
young people coming before the commission and explaining what
they saw happen? Why can they not speak from their hearts? Why
do they have to get lawyers?
What is wrong with this country is that because of previous
political parties giving funds to all kinds of special interest
groups we are lawyered to death.
We read in the paper last week about the hepatitis C issue,
which was pursued persistently by the opposition. What did we
find? We found a gaggle of lawyers on the west coast who hope to
gain millions upon millions of dollars in contingency fees if the
government pays up for the hepatitis C victims. Is that what
members on the other side want? Are they out to benefit lawyers?
I am very surprised. I expected more of my colleagues who were
elected in 1993 and in 1997 who came to parliament to change
things. I deplore seeing parliament turned into a heckle house,
into a chicken coop, a place where sheep cross the floor.
Look, when you baa, we baa. You baa, but you are the ones who
are baaing first. You are following the example of the press.
You are allowing yourself to be led into controversies that have
no substance.
I can tell members opposite that I am getting no complaints in
my office. Those members are fond of saying they speak for
Canadians. Quite frankly, they are not speaking for Canadians.
They are speaking for themselves. They should be ashamed of
themselves. Those members should have brought dignity to this
parliament. I do not know what to do with them.
I know Canadians are looking at this debate and making their
judgment because in my office, on my constituency lines, I only
hear silence. Nobody is on the side of people who will merely
throw garbage across this floor.
1705
I beg members of the Reform Party to bring back to this House
the kind of dignity it once had. Maybe they could follow the
lead of members of the Bloc Quebecois because they have shown
themselves to be far better parliamentarians than any of the
others on that side.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on a couple of things that the member said.
He talked about the importance of the issues that need to be
discussed in the House of Commons and what was taking place. I
would like to know, exactly what does the member think about
democracy?
We have a group of people who are doing what men and women died
for on the fields of war. They died so we could have freedom of
speech and freedom of expression. In a democratic country we
have the right to do this. Does the member dare to stand up and
say that democracy is not an important issue when it has been
abused so severely?
It is true that a commission was set up to deal with this issue.
Unfortunately, the government had a blabbermouth. When he opened
up his mouth and started talking about the issue the commission
plainly said that jeopardized its investigation. Now we are
getting into a legal process. This government and its absolute
disregard for democracy is what has caused the problem, not the
students. Those members had better recognize that and recognize
it now.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of
respect, I say to the member opposite, what rubbish. He cannot
give me lessons on democracy. He knows full well that this is a
country which respects the dignity of individuals, probably to
the highest degree of any democracy in the world.
We have the Public Complaints Commission to make sure that our
police forces, be they the RCMP or any other police force, do not
step out of line. That does not happen in other countries.
We talk about the incident. I was not there when the incident
occurred with the demonstrators. However, as a former student, I
know what it was like to demonstrate in the late 1960s because I
was one of those sixties individuals. That was the era of the
protest march. We protested all kinds of things. We tried to
elicit a reaction from the police or from the politicians because
that is what we did in those days. We sought that type of
response. It was a game. We have to allow for the fact that
perhaps these students may not have had all the right motives
when they engaged in this particular protest.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
the remarks he just made, the member for Wentworth—Burlington
referred to oral question period.
From my seat, I noticed two groups of grade-12 students in the
gallery behind you, Mr. Speaker. These students are likely to
vote for the first time in the next provincial or federal
election.
The member said time was being wasted and he was ashamed. I
think he is completely confused. He is probably not ashamed to
see students in this place, but more likely ashamed of his Prime
Minister's lack of respect for students.
First of all, he ridiculed them by saying that pepper is
something he puts on his plate, when we have seen time and time
again on television how pepper was used. That was holding up
students to ridicule.
Yesterday, during oral question period, the same Prime Minister
said students were better off being pepper-sprayed than beaten on
the head with baseball bats.
1710
What kind of Prime Minister is this? Is the member ashamed of
the opposition or ashamed of his Prime Minister and his
government?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, shame on the opposition.
The member opposite illustrated it perfectly. Instead of
raising a point that is substantial to the governance of this
country he admitted that question period has been engaged for
weeks on one or two maladroit remarks made by the Prime Minister
or the solicitor general.
There are all kinds of problems out there that we should be be
addressing as a parliament.
Let me also say that when I saw the film clip of the RCMP
spraying the students I was alarmed. I was very concerned. Do
not ever mistake that. I think it is absolutely right to have
the Public Complaints Commission investigate this. But we
Canadians do not prejudge people.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
make a couple of points on this issue and tell the House why we
should be supporting this motion.
The complaints commission is to deal with two or three issues
which are very important. One is to determine whether or not
excessive force was used by the police. Another is to determine
whether or not the police action constituted illegal acts. In
other words, did they do things without legal authority and, if
they did, were they motivated by instructions from the Prime
Minister's office?
There is evidence to suggest that this situation has to be
looked at. There is no question that the lawyers for the RCMP are
not going to pursue that evidence. There is no question that the
lawyers for the government are not going to pursue that evidence.
That leaves it up to the commission counsel. That is not good
enough.
There must be a legal pursuit of any evidence that suggests that
there was manipulation by the Prime Minister or members of his
office that caused the RCMP to act in a way that was improper or
illegal. The commission must have the capacity to do that.
I submit that we do not have that now. We must have trained,
experienced legal counsel to make submissions and motions for
further documentation that they feel is necessary to be examined
by the commission, all types of motions to ensure that this area
has been completely and thoroughly exhausted so that when the
report comes down we will have the answers. Was excessive police
force used? Were there illegal acts committed by members of the
RCMP in taking down signs where there was no constitutional or
legal authority to do so? Was there any action taken by the
police, particularly that which may be termed to be without legal
foundation, which was motivated by instructions from the Prime
Minister's office?
The commission must have the capacity to do that. What the
motion before the House today, which we will be voting on later,
clearly indicates, and what the discussions and the debate today
indicate, is that we do not have that capacity within the
commission now. That is one of the reasons, I suggest, the
commission has asked for legal representation for the students.
If we want to rest assured when the report comes in that all
avenues of investigation have been exhausted to determine those
points—whether excessive police force was used, whether illegal
police force was used, and whether any of it was motivated by
instructions, or counsel, or intimidation, or whatever from the
Prime Minister or his office—we must have legal counsel there.
That is why all members should consider supporting this motion
when we vote on it later today.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 106
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 135
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Guay
| Laurin
| MacAulay
| Marleau
|
Minna
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Rocheleau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that the results of the vote just taken be applied to the
main motion.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Shall I put the question on the main motion?
Some hon. members: Question.
1750
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Riis
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 105
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 135
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Guay
| Laurin
| MacAulay
| Marleau
|
Minna
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Rocheleau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO ACT
The House resumed from October 8 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, October 8, 1998,
the deferred recorded division is on the motion at second
reading of Bill C-42.
1800
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
An hon. member: No.
1810
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 175
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Muise
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 68
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Guay
| Laurin
| MacAulay
| Marleau
|
Minna
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Rocheleau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Friday, October 9,
1998, the next deferred recorded division is on Motion No. 17
under government business.
1820
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 106
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 135
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Guay
| Laurin
| MacAulay
| Marleau
|
Minna
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Rocheleau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
EXTRADITION ACT
The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-40, an act respecting extradition, to amend the
Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and
the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend
and repeal other acts in consequence, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, October 9,
1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion at the
second reading stage of Bill C-40.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion currently before the House, with the
Liberals voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no to this motion unless instructed otherwise
by their constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present
vote yes to this motion.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative members present vote yes to this motion.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I would vote in favour of this
government legislation.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 202
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Lowther
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 39
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Guay
| Laurin
| MacAulay
| Marleau
|
Minna
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Rocheleau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act (protection
of those who purchase products from vertically integrated
suppliers who compete with them at retail), be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, October 9,
1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion at the
second reading stage of Bill C-235.
The question is on the motion. As is the practice, this
division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover and
then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the
same side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the
motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called and
those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.
1835
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Bryden
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| DeVillers
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Elley
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Muise
| Nault
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Penson
| Peric
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Ur
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 158
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Bakopanos
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Boudria
| Brison
| Brown
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jones
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Mifflin
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Pagtakhan
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pratt
| Reed
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Torsney
| Vanclief
– 74
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Guay
| Laurin
| MacAulay
| Marleau
|
Minna
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Rocheleau
|
Speller
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6:36 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or operating a
stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, the concept for Private Members' Bill
C-219 originated in August 1996 at the annual meeting of the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. One of the resolutions
receiving unanimous support was to add a minimum jail sentence
when a stolen vehicle is used during the commission of a crime.
My private members' bill amends the Criminal Code so that a
person is guilty of an indictable offence and must be sentenced
to one year imprisonment if the person operates or uses a motor
vehicle that the person has stolen or knows has been stolen while
committing or attempting to commit an offence, or during flight
after committing or attempting to commit an offence. The sentence
for such an offence shall be served consecutively to any other
punishment imposed on the person.
This bill puts the police chiefs' resolution into practice. It
will clearly serve as a deterrent to those considering these
types of criminal acts.
There are three primary motivations for auto theft: one,
joyriding; two, transportation for criminal purposes such as
breaking and entering, robbery, and drive-by shootings; and
three, when a car is stripped for parts or exported to other
provinces or countries for sale.
1840
Statistics Canada has reported that motor vehicle theft is one
of the few crimes in Canada that has been rising in recent years.
Since 1988 auto thefts have grown by 80% with a 9% increase in
1996 alone. About one in one hundred vehicles were reported
stolen in 1996, that being the eighth straight annual increase.
In 1991 14% of stolen vehicles were used to commit other criminal
offences to escape from authorities.
We can assume that the increase since 1991 in total vehicle
thefts is directly proportionate to those used for committing a
crime. Therefore the problem is obviously much larger today.
Car theft has become a costly nuisance throughout this country.
Each year more than a billion dollars worth of vehicles are
stolen and there is another quarter of a billion dollars in
vandalism that has been done to cars that are recovered. Each
province is suffering from this growing problem.
In Toronto alone in a 25-day period in January 1998, there were
approximately 900 cars stolen while in 1997 there were 17,000
cars stolen. In Vancouver the records show that 25,077 vehicles
were stolen in the city in 1996, an increase of 1,331 from the
previous year. The greatest risk of theft was in Montreal where
31,211 vehicles were stolen last year.
Police have referred to the rate of theft in the greater
Vancouver area as an epidemic. People are stealing cars almost
at will to use for transportation and to commit other crimes.
Vancouver authorities recognize that people living there are also
increasingly at risk of being hit by a stolen car. Statistics
Canada, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, the
attorney general of B.C. and police officers have recently drawn
attention to this threat.
In Vancouver, Brenda Hohn, a 30-year old mother of two, was
killed when a stolen Dodge Shadow raced past a stop sign and
broadsided her car. Vida Coronado, a 31-year old single woman,
who had recently emigrated from the Philippines was killed. Her
car was struck in an intersection by a stolen Pontiac Firebird
that had run a red light.
ICBC, the province's public insurance agency, undertook a
comprehensive study of 28,000 auto theft claims filed in 1995 and
the first six months of 1996. It found that one in four Criminal
Code offences reported to the police in British Columbia in 1995
involved either theft of cars, theft from cars, or vandalism to
motor vehicles.
The increase in auto theft has meant a significant jump in costs
for the insurance corporation. About $91.4 million was paid out
in claims in 1996, up from $12.6 million in 1987. If the present
trend continues, the insurance company estimated the province
will pay more than $800 million by the end of the century from
direct stolen vehicle losses. If police, court and jail costs are
included, the cost of auto crimes will likely exceed $1.5 billion
in this single province alone by the year 2000.
Statistics Canada reports that children aged 12 to 17 account
for 56% of all stolen cars. Interviews with captured teenage car
thieves have determined that those 14 years of age or under had
stolen three cars per week in the 12 months before they were
caught.
Almost 80% of the cars are stolen for joyriding. Most of the
vehicles are dumped after a few hours and are recovered by police
in two days. For example, with an estimated 26,194 cars stolen
in B.C., the statistics indicate that every day there are about
40 cars being driven by joyriders under the age of 17.
Sadly, joyriding often leads to tragedy. A typical headline in
the newspaper reads as following. A 16 year old faces a charge of
criminal negligence causing death and two charges of criminal
negligence causing bodily harm after the stolen vehicle crashed
and killed one of his friends and maimed two others. Police say
four youths were in the car when it crashed and rolled at least
six times. One youth died at the scene. This headline has been
seen in every town across Canada. With cases such as these there
is usually no time served for the stolen car.
1845
All in all, this problem affects every individual in Canada.
Some may consider this petty theft but it is a major industry
with no recourse for the owner of the vehicle. The insurance
coverage for this type of theft costs Canadians almost $500
million annually. For each individual this crime imposes
physical, emotional and financial burdens.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that residential,
commercial and automobile thefts currently cost insurance
companies $2 billion a year in claims. In turn, the insurance
industry recovers these costs from consumers of insurance through
rate increases and of course higher deductibles.
For example, motor vehicle theft accounted for more than 49% of
the amount paid by the auto insurers in comprehensive claims in
1993 on 1992 model cars. Therefore the cost to insurers for auto
theft claims increased by 7% from 1992 to 1993.
My goal is not merely the reduction of auto thefts in Canada and
saving the insurance companies money. One of the most successful
approaches to reducing crime is what I think of as the broken
window theory. In other words, if we take care of the little
crimes the big ones seem to take care of themselves.
This private member's bill is a perfect example of this theory.
If this bill serves as a deterrent, and I think it will, to those
using motor vehicles to commit criminal acts, then there should
be a direct reduction in the number of deaths, injuries to
individuals and the cost for police forces, insurance companies
and different levels of government.
As seen in the U.S. in one study, when auto thefts fell in 12
major cities there was no corresponding increase in other major
crimes.
Toronto's chief of police has recently established a committee
that is trying to obtain a 25% reduction in the number of car
thefts. But he also acknowledged that they need assistance from
all levels of government.
I feel this private member's bill, which has been made votable,
is a good start in helping our police forces fight this epidemic
by sending the message that if a person commits a crime using a
stolen motor vehicle, that person will serve additional time.
I am particularly pleased that the chiefs of police support this
bill and all the policemen I have talked with regarding this bill
are quite supportive. I find that a number of people are quite
supportive of the idea of consecutive sentencing.
I have tried on a number of occasions in the House to have
people consider consecutive sentencing. When I was talking about
consecutive sentencing, I was thinking of people like Clifford
Olson who I believe should not serve one life sentence but should
serve more than that, one for each victim he murdered, and the
likes of Paul Bernardo, but nothing ever came of it. There was
never any consecutive sentencing that took place.
But lo and behold, one day I went to a courthouse and there was
actually some consecutive sentencing. That was the day that Bill
Cairns, a grain farmer from Manitoba, was charged on two
occasions for selling his own grain across the border. He served
30 days consecutive for each of these vicious crimes. That is how
ridiculous it has become, consecutive sentencing for a person who
was trying to illustrate the wrongness of a certain law through
civil disobedience.
1850
Now with this private member's bill we have the opportunity to
send a message loud and clear. I am sure that the members on the
government side would be supportive of it because one thing they
have said throughout the years I have been here is that
preventive measures need to be taken.
I believe a deterrent is one method of preventing crime. This
would serve as a deterrent. This would give the opportunity to
the justice minister to be very supportive in sending a message
loud and clear to the young offenders that this will not be
tolerated any longer. Remember that 50% of vehicles stolen are by
people under age 18.
Each year too many lives are lost because of vehicles being
stolen for joyriding by young offenders. We need to send the
message that they will be severely punished for stealing
vehicles. This must stop for the sake and safety of all other
victims.
Here is an opportunity. We have been waiting for quite some
time for changes to the YOA but they have not happened yet. We
have heard a lot of good rhetoric and a lot of talk that this
possibly could happen.
Supporting this bill would be an opportunity to send a message
to young people across Canada that the one activity they have
been heavily engaged in that will cease is the stealing of motor
vehicles.
In 1992 when I was on the campaign trail I parked my car after
an activity in my own garage one night in a small town of 1,800
people. I got up the next morning to go about my usual
campaigning details. I threw open the garage door and walked in
and for a moment I could not remember what I went in there for. I
looked around and asked what did I come in here for. My car was
gone. Where did I put that thing?
It is quite an experience. Six days later the car was recovered
with 1,800 additional kilometres put on it. The inside had
liquor spilled all over. All kinds of drug use went on in it.
They really violated it. Even though it was not violent in terms
of physical harm, it is quite a thing to happen to people who
rely on a vehicle for their use.
It was not investigated at any length to determine who had
stolen it. Unfortunately because of all the other problems the
police are facing, auto theft is put lower on the scale in terms
of spending some time investigating it. Consequently many are
not solved.
I think we need to send a message loud and clear that we are
going to impose consecutive sentencing on any members in society
who choose to steal a vehicle in the commission of a crime. I
hope the support of this bill will be as broad, far and wide in
the House of Commons as it is in the public.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
in our view the objectives of the private member's bill now
before the House are already well served by the tools provided by
common law principles of sentencing and the legislation currently
in place.
[Translation]
Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code, makes it an
indictable offence for a person to use a stolen motor vehicle
while committing or attempting to commit an offence, or during
flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence.
A person found guilty of this indictable offence must be
sentenced to one year's imprisonment. This sentence must be
served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the
person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of
events.
1855
[English]
Two mechanisms are currently in place to deal with such a
situation. The first is reflected in the common law principles
that govern sentencing. On a daily basis judges across Canada
impose sentences on offenders convicted of a wide variety of
Criminal Code offences, including offences involving the use of a
stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence. The
sentencing process has been repeatedly recognized as an
individualized process by courts at all levels in Canada,
including the Supreme Court of Canada.
[Translation]
This individualized sentencing process allows the tribunal to
exercise its discretionary power based on the facts relating to
each specific case. The sentences imposed by any tribunal show
that the factors taken into account by the courts include
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the seriousness of the
offence, the offender's responsibility and the sentences imposed
on other persons for similar offences committed under similar
circumstances.
The objectives judges seek to achieve through sentencing
include: denouncing the illegal behaviour of offenders,
deterring others from offending, recognizing the harm done to
the victims and the community, isolating offenders from the rest
of society if required, and providing compensation to the
victims or community. In fact, it is difficult to determine
generally what constitutes an appropriate sentence for a given
type of criminal behaviour.
[English]
The second mechanism which can be used to deal with the
situation described in Bill C-219 is legislation put in place by
this government, something the hon. member consistently failed to
recognize in his speech. Bill C-41, the Sentencing Reform Act,
enacted in 1995, provides judges with the first ever statement of
purpose and principles of sentencing in the Criminal Code. This
statement provides direction to courts on the fundamental purpose
of sentencing which is to contribute to the maintenance of a
just, peaceful and safe society. The sentencing amendments to the
Criminal Code which came into force in September 1996 also
identified the objectives which the sentencing of offenders is
designed to achieve.
[Translation]
The provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing also
set out a number of basic principles that should guide the
courts in achieving sentencing objectives.
According to these principles, the sentence should reflect the
gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the
offender—the proportionality principle; the courts should take
into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances and impose
similar sentences for similar actions; excessively long or harsh
sentences must be avoided—the totality principle; offenders
should not be imprisoned if a more lenient sentence can be
imposed; and the courts should consider every possible sentence
besides imprisonment that may be justified under the
circumstances.
[English]
It is within this statutory framework that a sentencing judge
would determine the appropriate sanction to impose on an offender
who had been charged and convicted of theft of a motor vehicle or
who had been charged and convicted of another substantive
Criminal Code offence which involved the use of a stolen motor
vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight
following commission of the offence. This statutory framework
clearly enables and guides courts in tailoring sanctions
appropriate to the conduct of the offender.
Where an offender used a stolen motor vehicle in the commission
of an offence, courts would consider this to be an aggravated
factor in sentencing and one which would merit the application of
the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
If while in flight in a stolen motor vehicle following the
commission of an offence the offender posed a danger to the lives
or safety of others due to excessive speed, for example, this too
would be considered an aggravating factor meriting a harsher
sentence.
1900
[Translation]
The sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code also allow the
judge to exercise the discretionary power to impose consecutive
sentences if necessary. We believe that the current sentencing
process is comprehensive and gives all the flexibility required
to adjust sentences to the circumstances surrounding each
offender's behaviour.
[English]
The proposals contained in Bill C-219 are simply not required at
this time to address the conduct of offenders using a stolen
motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight
following commission of an offence. We already have the tools at
our disposal to deal with the situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, according to Bill C-219, every one who, in
committing an offence, operates or uses a motor vehicle that he
has stolen or knows to have been stolen is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of one
year. What is more, it calls for the sentence for this offence
to be served consecutive to any other imposed for the same act.
From what has been said in this House today it will be
understood that what is involved is auto theft, and the
amendment the hon. member is proposing is no doubt intended to
remedy a shortcoming. Therefore, we have to see whether there is
a shortcoming in the Criminal Code, when it comes to auto theft.
There is a problem, however. We are all aware that there are
indeed many thefts of automobiles in Canada and in Quebec, as
the hon. member has just said. Unlike other types of crime, it
is on the rise. But will the problem be solved by making the
penalty stiffer, by adding what the hon. member wants to see
added? The answer is no. What is there in the Criminal Code?
Motor vehicle theft is indeed a significant problem, we must
agree. But is Bill C-219 the solution? The Criminal Code
currently contains a series of measures that apply to auto
theft. I invite the hon. member to read section 322. According
to it, any person who steals property may be charged with a
criminal offence and is liable to up to 10 years imprisonment,
if the value of the stolen property exceeds $5,000.
And, of course, in the case of an automobile, the value of the
property generally exceeds $5,000.
If the value of the property is under $5,000, section 334 of the
Criminal Code applies. Under section 334, the individual will
either be found guilty of a summary offence, and sentenced to a
maximum of six months' imprisonment, or a $2,000 fine, or found
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years.
In section 335 of the Criminal Code, the law makers have
provided that individuals may be found guilty of a summary
offence if they took possession of a motor vehicle without,
however, intending to steal it. The House will recall that we
discussed this amendment to the Criminal Code very recently,
with respect to Bill C-209.
In my opinion, the amendments proposed by the member for Wild
Rose do not add anything new to the existing legislative
framework. Finally, I think the member's bill is based on false
premises. Bill C-219 implies that it is now impossible to lay
charges of theft under section 322 of the Criminal Code if the
offence contributed to the perpetration of another offence.
There is no sign of a regulatory vacuum in this regard at the
present time. An individual may be charged with several
offences, including theft under section 322 of the Criminal
Code.
1905
With his bill, the member seems to consider that stealing a
motor vehicle is a more serious offence if the vehicle is used
to commit another offence. The member believes that regulating
this specific offence would ensure more equitable treatment of
the offender. I do not agree.
Excessive regulating does not solve all the problems. By
systematically regulating the multiple aspects of an offence, we
would restrict the courts' discretionary power. In my opinion,
Bill C-219 would unnecessarily restrict that discretionary power,
which has so far served justice very well.
The courts were given this discretionary sentencing power
because they are the ones that analyze the evidence relating to
a case. With this discretionary power, a judge can impose a
sentence that is fair and appropriate.
For example, before imposing a sentence, the judge may take into
consideration the fact that not only did the individual steal
the motor vehicle, but that he also used it to commit another
offence. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
provided a very good explanation of how this discretionary power
is used by the courts when imposing a sentence.
Moreover, the courts can, under section 718.3(4) of the Criminal
Code, order that sentences be served consecutively. Again,
nothing indicates that the specific case referred to in the bill
would not be subject to that procedure.
Nothing justifies amending the Criminal Code to require
consecutive sentencing in this case.
While car theft is a major crime in Canada, the Bloc Quebecois
does not think that the member's proposals will correct the
situation. Systematic coding of all facets of an infraction is
no guarantee of better legal processing. Contrary to what the
Reform members appear to think, criminal law is weakened when we
try to anticipate every eventuality in an inflexible legal
provision.
There is no other area of law where evidence is as important and
where circumstances play such a preponderant role.
I think quite sincerely, especially for this type of offence,
that the courts in Quebec and Canada already apply the sections
of the Criminal Code extremely well and there is no need for us
to intervene in this field of jurisdiction.
I can hear the member speaking, and he does not seem to agree
with my position. I believe that everyone here and our viewing
audience will understand that we will not reduce the number of
car thefts merely by creating a specific section on it. It is a
matter of supply and demand and, unfortunately, there are many
car thieves who make their living this way.
It is unacceptable. However, the Criminal Code, as it stands,
contains provisions that can and must be applied to reduce car
theft as much as possible, and the amendments proposed in Bill
C-219 are not going to resolve the problem.
We have everything we need in the Code to resolve it.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-219, an
act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to using or operating
a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence.
I commend the hon. member for Wild Rose. Although we may not
always agree on the remedies in the justice system, we do agree
that there are many problems in our justice system. We do agree
that the Liberal government is not always there for Canadians to
strengthen the Criminal Code and toughen provisions when needed.
I would also like to indicate that I will miss his lively,
passionate and straightforward intervention at our justice
committee meetings. He was a very valued member of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is not to take away
from any of the current members from the Reform Party, but they
will be hard pressed to replace this very unique and legendary
member for Wild Rose.
As mentioned by previous speakers, the bill would amend section
334 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of the amendment is to
classify those found guilty of operating or using a motor vehicle
that a person has stolen or knows has been stolen while
committing an indictable offence during flight or committing or
attempting to commit an offence as indictable offences.
1910
The sentence for such an offence would be a term of imprisonment
for one year. It would also require that the sentence be served
consecutive to any other punishment if it arises out of the same
set or series of events that contributed to the conviction for
the first offence. All of that is to say in common parlance that
there would be greater emphasis placed on an offence that was
committed while using a stolen vehicle.
I think the hon. member's intentions are to act as a greater
deterrent for such offences. I disagree with the comments of the
previous speaker when he seemed to indicate that there are
existing Criminal Code provisions that address this problem. They
may address the problem if enforced but the reality is that we
need to put greater emphasis if it is to have a greater deterrent
effect.
I commend the hon. member's efforts in this regard and I am
supportive of the bill. This is a positive measure that the
member for Wild Rose brings forward because it addresses two key
areas in which there is need for improvement to our Criminal
Code.
It would toughen the criminal sanctions for those individuals
who use a stolen vehicle to assist in the commission of their
criminal act. This would be a welcome change because it punishes
criminals additionally for the additional step that they have
taken, namely having stolen a vehicle to commit another offence.
The use of a stolen vehicle is as much a crime as any other
criminal act and it can be punished separately. In this instance
I assume the hon. member is intending that there be a special
section of the Criminal Code that singles out and punishes that
specific act.
The second area of the intended amendment proposed in section
334.1(2), which is very much a truth in sentencing provision,
ensures that the sentence imposed on the criminal, namely the
driver, would be served consecutively, that is it would not be
simply dealt away which is often done in criminal proceedings in
a plea bargain. The sentence would be cumulative. It would be
served consecutively as opposed to concurrently.
This would send a strong message to the thousands of Canadians
who lose their vehicles through theft or someone who would commit
a robbery and forcefully take their vehicles. It would bring
about greater accountability. It would certainly send that
message to the criminal element.
As a crown attorney I had occasion to prosecute cases involving
stolen vehicles. I can say, just as in any other instance when a
person has their property removed, this is particularly offensive
to individuals. Oftentimes the theft of a motor vehicle is a
very personalized type of crime. People for obvious reasons
attach a great deal of importance to their vehicle as a mode of
transportation. When that vehicle is stolen and often damaged or
never recovered, the person is greatly inconvenienced. There is
also that psychological feeling of invasion that a person
experiences when their property is taken or damaged, similar to
when a person's home is invaded.
The purpose of the hon. member's motion is to amend the code to
put greater emphasis on this type of offence, and I believe it is
a positive one. I would therefore hope that there is support for
the motion. I would hope that the Liberals who vote on the
motion are the Liberals who chose at second reading to support
Bill C-284 brought forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
I certainly hope the Liberals who vote on Bill C-219 are not the
same submissive bunch that we saw voting in the House earlier
today on the motion to have legal funding for students at the
APEC inquiry. That seemed to very much echo an earlier vote that
we saw in the House with respect to hepatitis C.
It is unfortunate but there are times when we can literally see
the welts rising on the backs of backbenchers in government when
these types of check your conscience issues are brought forward
in the Chamber.
Legislation no matter how well meaning will go nowhere without
the ability to implement and enforce it. I would therefore like
to outline some of my concerns with respect to the government's
persistence in underfunding a host of law enforcement issues.
The solicitor general has often stated publicly that public
safety is a strategy and a priority of the government.
1915
As we have all learned in recent weeks, the words of the
solicitor general can become somewhat meaningless. Indeed, there
is one thing the solicitor general does do that we all have
recognized and that is he likes to talk much more than he likes
to act.
Instead of talking, the solicitor general could also do a lot to
demonstrate his commitment to public safety by supporting
legislation such as the initiative brought forward by the member
for Wild Rose and by paying greater attention to what our police
community is telling him. Quite bluntly, police officers are
getting the shaft from this Liberal government.
According to information revealed by the government's own
organized crime committee in April, the national police service
needs an additional $200 million over the next four years or it
will functionally expire. That will have an impact on every part
of this country.
We have already seen a situation which has evolved where large
detachments of the RCMP are underfunded. Even worse, the force's
overall budget for the fiscal year is $10 million short to date
and the RCMP cadet program has been frozen for the rest of the
year.
Sadly, I have been repeatedly warned that the solicitor general
is listening but not acting. This government has for many months
displayed a callous and reckless attitude in taking its approach
toward the fundamental law of principles. This is a time when
the Liberal government seems oblivious to the negative
consequences of the government's disbanding of the ports police,
as we saw in Halifax and Vancouver, and we are seeing an
increasing amount of drug smuggling and illegal contraband
material coming into Canada through our ports. Yet this decision
was made and followed through against the wishes of many in the
community who knew what the ramifications would be.
The solicitor general and the Liberal government decided to cut
$74.1 million from the RCMP's organized crime budget for this
fiscal year according to the government's own estimate documents.
This is not leadership on providing resources to our law
enforcement community. It is quite the contrary. That is a 13%
cut in just one fiscal year of the overall dollars spent by the
RCMP.
The RCMP is not the only police force that feels the effect
because municipal and provincial police forces inevitably are
forced to pick up the slack. Many of these forces are already
burdened by the abandonment of the ports police and are
struggling to fill the void left by this government's acts.
During the summer both the solicitor general and the RCMP
commissioner toured this country, gingerly mentioning the need
for increased resources. It is almost like having two
undertakers worrying about the appearance of a corpse after it
has been buried.
What we need is a real commitment to law enforcement in this
country, not just talk about it and that includes talk in this
Chamber. This government has to bring in legislative initiatives
if we are to see real concrete improvements.
I applaud the member for Wild Rose for taking such an
initiative. It is quite disturbing to think that this government
would not embrace such a positive initiative on his part.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am here this evening to address Bill C-219 proposed by
the hon. member for Wild Rose.
Unlike the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I am not
here to talk about funding, lack of funding, deficits or cuts.
I would first like to applaud the member for the concern he has
brought to Canadians about the problem of automobile theft.
However, like the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I
am an attorney. One of the first things I learned in law school
is that before one cites one part of the act one should read the
entire act.
I would like to support the parliamentary secretary for justice
and also the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm. I will not
repeat what they have said. However, I would first like to look
at the legislation itself to let Canadians know that the Liberal
government and the Criminal Code as it exists today protect us.
The hon. member's bill provides for a new indictable offence. He
talks about the use of a stolen motor vehicle and its relation to
any offence.
1920
Bill C-219 is proposed to be put in as section 334.1 of the
Criminal Code which is immediately after section 334 which deals
with the punishment for theft. We have talked about that already
today.
Punishment is twofold under section 334. If my car, which is an
old car and is ready for the junkyard, is stolen and it is under
$1,000 the person who steals that car has committed an offence
but it is under $5,000 so it is a summary conviction offence. If
the car of one of my neighbours up the street, a brand new car,
is stolen and it is worth more than $10,000 it is subject to an
indictable offence. Our Criminal Code does take into account the
seriousness of the offences.
Immediately after 334.1 comes 335 which deals with what we
commonly know as joyriding. This is one of the things the hon.
member raised, the problem of joyriding and the fact that a lot
of young people tend to take cars for joyrides.
What section 335 talks about is taking a car without the consent
of an owner. The hon. member's bill talks about using. Does
that mean without consent? Does it mean with consent? What does
it actually mean? I think when we are drafting legislation we
need to look at the language very carefully. Under section 335
the act of joyriding is a summary conviction offence, not an
indictable offence.
The hon. member mentioned that we have a lot of youth crime.
Perhaps I have missed something but youth crimes are dealt with
under the Young Offenders Act and punishments for youth are dealt
with in the Young Offenders Act. I do not quite see how Bill
C-219 would deal with the alleged problem we have with 14
year olds.
We look at this bill as trying to get all people involved as
parties to an offence. Under section 2 of the Criminal Code
any person who actually commits an offence, does anything to aid
a person to commit an offence or abets any person committing an
offence is guilty of an offence.
In addition, persons who have a common intention to carry out an
offence or what could end up an offence are also guilty of an
offence. So already the person who happens to be using the car
while an offence is being committed, but we are not sure if that
is indictable, summary, or hybrid, is already taken care of.
The other thing that Bill C-219 tries to address is attempting
to commit an offence. Canadians will think it is a good thing we
are doing something to get those people who are attempting to
commit an offence but again this matter is dealt with in section
463 of the Criminal Code. Once again it makes a distinction
between indictable offences and summary conviction offences.
If a person is attempting to commit a crime that is an
indictable offence then an indictable punishment will apply. If
they are attempting to commit a summary conviction offence then a
summary conviction penalty will apply.
Bill C-219 talks about flight following the commission of an
offence. Section 23 of the Criminal Code already deals with
punishment where a person has attempted to commit an offence and
then is an accessory after the fact. Moreover, if the person is
an accessory after the fact to murder then that is an indictable
offence.
It is terrible when people are killed, as the hon. member
pointed out, but the Criminal Code already deals with these
provisions.
1925
Under section 249 the dangerous operation of motor vehicles is
dealt with. It does not make any distinction whether the car has
been stolen, whether it is owned, whether it is with consent or
without consent, whether the person is under or over 14. It
deals with punishing people who dangerously operate any motor
vehicle.
If that dangerous operation of a motor vehicle involves bodily
harm there is also a more serious offence and should that
dangerous operation of a motor vehicle end up causing death,
those provisions are dealt with strongly.
I commend the hon. member for his concern about automobile
thefts but the provisions are already present in the code. I
concur with my colleagues on sentencing. The whole area of
sentencing must be looked at within the act itself.
Under section 718 of the act the purpose and principles of
sentencing are clearly established for all Canadians to see. Many
issues are dealt with and perhaps the most important one, as my
other colleague said, is accumulative punishment which is
something that should be left to the discretion of the court.
In light of these comments and concurring with the parliamentary
secretary and the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, I urge
members not to support Bill C-219.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in support of the hon. member
for Wild Rose on Bill C-219.
A portion of this bill adds a minimum sentence when a stolen
vehicle is used during the commission of a crime. That would be
logical to anybody except a lawyer, especially a criminal lawyer.
We just heard that from the other side.
Bill C-219 would amend the Criminal Code so the person is guilty
of an indictable offence and must be sentenced to one year
imprisonment if the person operates or uses a motor vehicle that
a person has stolen or knows that it has been stolen while
committing or attempting to commit an offence or during the
flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence.
The sentence for such an offence shall be served consecutively
to any other punishment imposed. What is wrong with that?
It boggles my mind. I just heard the hon. member from the other
side arguing or debating about the theft of an automobile. If one
was a little more expensive than another then another law would
apply. That sounds to me like one law for the rich, those who
can afford an expensive automobile, one for those who cannot
afford such an expensive automobile.
Is this justice in this member's eyes? Theft is theft whether
it is worth $100 or whether it is $20,000. To the person who
loses that vehicle it is theft. One law should apply, not two or
three to go up on the scale of the value.
A $500 car may be as valuable to me as to somebody who could
afford a $30,000 car. I have to use a vehicle to get to work. I
need that in order to supply a paycheque in order to feed my
family.
It is as much of a value to me as the $30,000 car is to the
other person. Why should there be a difference in sentencing
just on that?
An hon. member: A Liberal law.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Liberal law is right. It absolutely
makes no sense at all.
In 1993 when all of us, every major party in this House,
campaigned on law and order issues, it was running rampant then
and it is running rampant now.
I well remember in the 1993 campaign the Liberal candidate
speaking on law and order. I can well remember the NDP and the
Conservative candidates speaking on law and order, and myself as
a Reformer speaking on law on order. It was one of the hottest
topics in our constituency. We talked about what was happening
in society, about how people were getting fed up and were afraid,
and how the B and Es and the car thefts were escalating.
1930
It was one of the hottest topics. Promises were given by all
parties that we would start to address these issues, yet nothing
has been done. Not a thing has been done to address these issues
since I have sat in this House. It is escalating according to
the police reports. Not according to our reports or their
reports, but according to the police reports it is escalating and
nothing is being done.
We have a chance with this bill to put a little bit of teeth
into it. We have tried the soft approach. We are tired of
trying it. The victims are tired of trying it. Many have been
victimized more than once. We are sick and tired of the soft
approach. It is not working and it is time we tried something
different. We cannot be afraid to try something different when we
know what we have tried is not working.
Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent trying to address
these problems and it has got us nowhere but an increase in
crime. Even the government has to admit that. It has been an
increase, not a decrease. So where is the government taking us?
It is taking us down the road with absolutely no return. It will
just keep escalating. We know that. The criminals know that
because they have nothing to be afraid of.
Criminals will be sentenced for two or three crimes and all that
will be served is one sentence. So what is there to be afraid
of? Why would they not steal a vehicle to commit a crime? They
are not going to get any more of a sentence for it. Nothing more
is going to happen to them. Less will probably happen to them if
they smash it up and run into somebody. That is just the way our
system works. We have been led down the garden path far too long
on the soft beating heart part of it.
If we really want to do something for our youth it is about time
we started to protect them. It is the young people who suffer
the most in stolen vehicle accidents. It is the young person who
gets into a car that his friend has stolen. Half the time he or
she does not even know it is stolen and they roll it. He or she
is the innocent victim but nothing happens because of it.
We keep going down the route we have been going on for years and
we keep losing our young people. We keep going to funerals
because nobody has ever said that enough is enough. There is
such a thing as tough love and it works in some cases. Believe
me, it works. If I had been able to get away with everything
when I was a youth, I hate to think where I would be today, maybe
the Prime Minister.
This is the wrong attitude. It has totally gone out the window.
The bill specifically states “in the use of crime”. Does the
government not realize that a vehicle can be used as a deadly
weapon? It is a deadly weapon especially in the commission of a
crime when trying to make a getaway. It now becomes a lethal
weapon. Probably more people have been killed accidents involving
a vehicle in the commission of a crime than by any other weapon.
It is a very dangerous weapon yet the government does not care.
The government says our system adequately addresses this. That
is a joke. If it was being addressed, it would not be escalating
the way it is.
If it were not such a joke, they would be a little afraid of
stealing the vehicle and using it. The police would not support
this bill if the situation were not such a joke, such a sad
thing. The police support this bill.
1935
Some members do not support the bill yet they want to talk about
law and order and about how well it is serving us. It is not
serving us. Read the papers, see what is going on in this
country. They should open their eyes, get out in the real world
for a change and find out.
Talk to people who have had their vehicles stolen. Talk to
people who get their vehicles back totally gutted out with
nothing left. Talk to the person who has put years and years of
work into a project like an old car just to have somebody rip it
off, strip it and use it in the commission of a crime. Talk to
some of those people for a change and find out exactly what they
are going through. Members should not just get up and give us the
bleeding heart syndrome that it works.
An hon. member: They can't fight crime. They have to
keep their jobs.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Keep their jobs all right. It is a
sad day when we have to stand and try to get a bill like this put
through the House. It addresses a crime in this country and the
government totally refuses to listen. I hope members over there
open their eyes before it is too late.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, on June 1,
1998, I rose in the House and put a question to the Minister of
Human Resources Development. I will repeat that question
because it is an important one.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue should be ashamed
for saying that he made workers pay the debt. While the Minister
of Finance is spending the $17 billion surplus in the EI fund,
fewer than 40% of unemployed workers are receiving EI benefits.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development stop conducting
studies and take action? Will he change the EI eligibility
criteria in order to help the 780,000 workers who are not
receiving benefits?
I was pleased with the minister's answer in June, which went
like this:
Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions in this House and
throughout the country, it is clear that our government is
concerned about the fact that only 42% of unemployed workers are
covered under the existing EI system.
The minister was “concerned” that only 42% of unemployed workers
were entitled to EI.
The minister went on to say:
My department has asked Statistics Canada to add a number of
questions over the coming months so that we may get a clear
picture of the situation these unemployed workers are facing. My
department will be able to analyze the information provided by
Statistics Canada and make informed decisions.
It is now October and finally the report we have all been
waiting for is here. The minister is now hiding behind the fact
that 78% of unemployed workers are eligible for EI. But they
are eligible under the new criteria. What is worrisome, and
must be discussed, is that the report indicates that only 43% of
former contributors qualify for EI.
The amendments have been prejudicial to women in this country,
including expectant mothers. In 1997, there were 12,000 fewer
applications for maternity benefits.
The new eligibility criteria require 700 hours, meaning that
most women working part time do not qualify for benefits.
1940
The minister turns around and says that the only reason they
do not get EI benefits is that they did not work long enough.
We, however, say to the minister that the reason these people no
longer qualify is because they changed the criteria.
These 12,000 women did work and did pay their premiums, but
because the rules were changed and people are now required to
work 700 hours, they no longer qualify.
Another group that no longer qualifies is those who leave their
jobs.
In Canada, 100,000 workers quit their jobs, but the government
says they did not have a good reason to do so and are therefore
not eligible for employment insurance benefits, even though
these people would have qualified in the past.
In 1993, when the Prime Minister was in the opposition, he sent
a letter to people in Quebec, telling them that the Conservative
legislation was terrible, that it was unacceptable, because
workers who were sexually harassed could not even quit their
jobs. He even wrote that workers who were harassed by their
employer could no longer leave their jobs.
Now—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time is up.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
member's underlying question is an important one. Does
employment insurance meet the needs of Canadians? This is a
question that the government takes very seriously and this is why
we welcomed the report published yesterday to which the member
opposite refers.
On Monday the department issued its findings. Overall the study
indicates that employment insurance does a good job of providing
temporary help to unemployed Canadians in between jobs. That is
what it was originally intended to do. We are not hiding behind
the report. We are proud that 78% of unemployed workers who have
lost their jobs or quit with just cause in the last year were
eligible for employment insurance benefits.
While opposition parties keep repeating that the proportion of
unemployed Canadians who qualify for EI is too low, the fact is
that unemployed people not covered by EI can now get help through
other programs, which they could not do before.
Some unemployed persons were never meant to be covered by EI at
all. For example, self-employed Canadians have never been
eligible. Those who have never worked or contributed to the
program have never been eligible and those who have been without
work for a long period of time have never been eligible.
The new study suggests that many Canadians find it difficult
either to get a first job or to return to the workforce after a
long period without work. These people need more from us than
just an EI cheque to help get them by from week to week. They
need the tools to help themselves. That is why we have
consistently acted to help unemployed Canadians regardless of
whether or not they were eligible for EI.
With the new system, even if some people do not qualify for
benefits they can still get the help they need. We have more
active employment measures to help people get skills. We ensure
that anyone who qualified for EI in the last three years now does
have access—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time has run out.
[Translation]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam Speaker, on
October 8, I announced in this House that the New Brunswick
premier, Camille Thériault, was aware of the plan to build a
correctional college in my province, the very college the member
for Palliser heard the Solicitor General talking about on his
famous flight to Fredericton.
In my opinion, this is irrefutable evidence that the member for
Palliser heard the Solicitor General discussing confidential
matters in public. This is why I asked the Solicitor General to
admit that he had committed a grave error and invited him to
resign.
What was his response? He said the member for Palliser had
misunderstood him.
Knowing that the member for Palliser could not have known of the
correctional college unless he had heard about it on the plane,
the Solicitor General nevertheless decided to deny the remarks
by the member for Palliser.
Needless to say, the Solicitor General's response left a lot to
be desired.
1945
On the other hand, I have to say that his response surprised no
one. For three weeks now, the Solicitor General has refused to
acknowledge that he made a grave mistake. He has refused to
admit that he discussed confidential matters in public. He is
incapable of recognizing that his behaviour was completely
inappropriate for a minister.
In fact, the behaviour of the Solicitor General is totally in
keeping with that of his government, which has attained a point
of such arrogance that it deems itself above all criticism. The
debate in the House today shows that very clearly.
The RCMP public complaints commission asked him to provide
adequate funding to allow UBC students to hire lawyers to
represent them before the commission, but the solicitor general
denied its request, arguing that the students did not need
lawyers to represent them.
The government however is sending a full team of well-paid
lawyers to Vancouver to represent and defend the interests of
the solicitor general, the Prime Minister and the Liberal
government before the commission.
Since the beginning of October, the solicitor general has been
contending that the public complaints commission is a fair,
equitable and independent institution and that parliament should
let it do its job.
But when the commission asks him for the resources it needs to
do its job, the solicitor general refuses to provide them.
How can the solicitor general claim that the commission's
proceedings will be fair and equitable when, by his own actions,
he is making sure they cannot be.
This brings me back to my original question. On October 8, I
asked the solicitor general to resign. He refused. Since then,
almost every editorial writer in the country, including those of
the Globe and Mail, the Halifax Herald, La Presse and the
Edmonton Journal, have called for his resignation. Yet he will
not resign.
The solicitor general keeps on making blunders, but the people
of Canada and all my colleagues in the opposition keep on
wondering when he will tender his resignation.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my impression that there
is a lot of repetition in this House—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jacques Saada: —and attempts to interfere with answers, as if
they were of no interest to the person asking the question. It
seems to me that, if a person asks a question, it is because he
or she wants an answer to it.
The premise of the hon. member opposite is something I reject as
absolutely morally untenable. It is based on what was allegedly
overheard from a private conversation in a plane, something a
third party, someone not included in the conversation, had the
audacity to make public, without regard to any responsibility
for the consequences this might have on the credibility of the
commission.
One thing is certain, the contents of the conversation in the
plane between the solicitor general and Mr. Toole were part of a
private discussion.
So people can ask all the questions they want in whatever way
they want, but I will not talk about the content of that
conversation for two reasons. First, I was not on that plane and
I invite my colleagues to exercise the same kind of restraint
since they were not on that plane either. Before taking this at
face value, I think there are some ethical considerations to be
taken into account.
Second, I will not talk about it because, by definition, it was
not a public but a private conversation. It is not my place to
comment publicly on a private conversation.
Moreover, the members talk about providing funding for the
students and they throw in a lot of unfounded allegations.
However, a decision was made in this House with regard to this
issue.
It was explained at length that this issue does not affect only
that specific commission or that specific problem but that, when
a precedent is created, it applies to all administrative
tribunals.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.49 p.m.)