August 21, 2001
Kamloops Daily News



The findings of Ted Hughes' inquiry into the 1997 APEC
demonstrations in Vancouver were anticlimactic.   Canadians
had decided long ago that the Government of Canada was
involved in the suppression of demonstrators' constitutional
rights.

These APEC demonstrations were pre-Seattle.  They were the
kind of peaceful protest that citizens of most democratic
countries take for granted.  Demonstrators held up signs and
sat passively in the road.

The Government of Canada saw things differently.  "There was
concern about vandalism. This was the very place where the
meeting was going to take place. And therefore, the host,
the Government of Canada decided that it wanted to secure
the site," says Ivan Whitehall, government lawyer.

Whitehall confuses the 1997 APEC meeting with later
confrontations between anarchists and police such as those
in Seattle and Quebec, where the Government set up their
media focus props -- the provocative fence in Quebec city
and armoured police in their Darth Vader costumes.  Then
they waited for the inevitable clash with anarchists. 

It's preferable for the Government to stage conflicts with
protestors  because then they don't have to deal with their
legitimate concerns.  And with the concerns of most
Canadians according to a recent poll. Those concerns can be
dismissed by Chretien, as he recently did with Quebec
delegates from civil society,  as "blah, blah, blah."

The role of the Prime Minister Chretien in directing attacks
in 1997 against the peaceful APEC demonstrators was not
fully explored by Hughes.  The truth is still out there,
according to Alliance MP Jim Abbott.  "There are filing
cabinets full of documents that show involvement of Chretien
in the affair," he says.  But Hughes' commission did not
have the mandate to look at them.

There is evidence that involves Prime Minister Chretien.   
First there is the scrawled police memo that said "PM wants
tenters out".  "I did not talk to the police myself" said
Prime Minister Chretien (September 1998).  Maybe not.  And
maybe ex-US President Clinton was technically telling the
truth when he said "I did not have sex with that Lewinski
woman".

But the most compelling evidence of the Prime Minster's APEC
came from one of Chretien's own cabinet minsters, Andy
Scott.   Scott, the former Solicitor General, was sitting on
a plane in 1998 and talking to his friend -- loud enough for
fellow passenger NDP MP Dick Proctor to  overhear it all.

Scott told his friend "Hughie may be the guy who takes the
fall for this."  Scott was referring to Sgt. Hugh Stewart,
who was captured on video dousing demonstrators with pepper
spray.  The video was played on television news dozens of
times.

At first Solicitor General Scott couldn't seem to remember a
thing about the conversation. When a reporter asked   "You
never heard of Sgt. Stewart?", Scott replied "No I don't.
No. (Oct. 5 1998 CBC transcripts).

When Scott's friend agreed with Dick Proctor, Scott had
sudden recall. But not soon enough for him to be saved from
being sacked by his boss, Prime Minister Chretien.

Sgt. Stewart gained the nickname "Sgt Pepper" by the
demonstrators.  In the spirit of things, Prime minister
Chretien made light of the incident.  He called pepper
"something I put on my steak" and in the House of Commons
said that maybe the police should have used baseball bats
instead of pepper spray (October 19, 1998).  Ha ha, that's a
good one, Jean.

When the Prime Minister was questioned about the seemingly
callous remark, he went from the frying pan to the fire. 
Chretien replied "I don't know. You know, use water cannon?
I don't know". 

Jim Abbott was not amused. "Doesn't he realize that the
reference to baseball bats yesterday and then trying to
placate people by talking about water cannons today is
totally unacceptable, completely offensive to Canadians," he
said.

Chretien's attitude towards legitimate protest is not
acceptable.  He is more concerned with protecting the rights
of corporations and foreign leaders of dubious distinction
than Canadians.   His comments turned out to be prophetic in
the escalated violence at Quebec.

Was the Prime Minister involved in the embarrassing debacle
of fortress Quebec, where water cannons and batons were used
on citizens?  I don't think Canadians will have to wait for
another inquiry to decide.

go back to my Columns in the