The Written Word
for February 27, 2000

The Hughes Inquiry into the Apec mess just goes on and on. And one has to wonder just what will be the result.

There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that there were police excesses but the question most Canadians want answered is whether or not special protection and excessive RCMP responses were a result of orders from the Prime Minister’s office. The Commissioner Ted Hughes is a very careful lawyer and judge and has to power to issue of withhold subpoenas depending upon whether or not, in his judgment, the proposed witness can offer anything of assistance.

I believe that in refusing to permit a subpoena to Prime Minister Chretien Mr Hughes made a mistake – perhaps not a legal mistake but perhaps a moral one. Now let me quickly dispel any notion that Mr Hughes has done anything immoral. What I’m saying is that a commission such as this – where the question of prime ministerial involvement is very much in issue – there is a national issue of morality at stake. This is not a trial of anyone … it is a search for the truth.

There has been in the past some question of immunity for the Head of State. Both Presidents Nixon and Clinton tried that with their respective impeachment troubles but got second prize. But the point is, of course, that Jean Chretien is not head of state but head of the government and there is no exemption for political chiefs.

But if Mr Hughes is in doubt, why not simply accept his judgment?

Because I think this very important – indeed critical question has been raised. Did the head of the government of Canada interfere with the police? For when the government runs the police that is a police state. There have been a number of fingers pointed. Some police evidence that there was interference is there. There is evidence that Lloyd Axworthy, whose boss is Chretien, certainly seems to have guaranteed that Mr Suharto would be given special treatment. Moreover, one would think with government consent, armed bodyguards of Suharto’s were permitted on the scene.

Since this is not a trial but only an inquiry, surely any doubt ought to be resolved in favour of getting at the truth.

Mr Hughes has made it very difficult for Mr Chretien to refuse, however. The request was so couched that Mr Chretien will almost have to be rude to the Chairman and the Inquiry to refuse.

But refuse Mr Chretien can, And refuse he probably will. And the man who can put paid to the question of Prime Ministerial interference will not have to testify.

I say it’s a shame and that Mr Hughes should have given the benefit of the doubt to the request for the subpoena, not to the Prime Minister.