CONTENTS
Thursday, September 29, 1994
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6297
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6297
Bill C-277. Motions for introduction and first readingagreed to. 6298
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6298
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 6299
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6309
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6311
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6311
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6313
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6314
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6315
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6318
Mr. PericMr. Rocheleau 6327
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6327
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 6328
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 6329
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6329
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6330
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6331
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6331
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6331
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6331
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6331
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6331
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6332
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6332
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6332
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6332
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6333
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6333
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6333
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6334
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6334
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 6335
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6337
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6337
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6339
Consideration resumed of motion 6340
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6341
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6343
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.08 p.m.) 6348
The House resumed at 4.25 p.m. 6348
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6351
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6355
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6357
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6358
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 6360
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6366
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 6368
6295
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 29, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Madam Speaker, I welcome this morning the
opportunity to report to my federal colleagues of this House on
the international conference on population and development
held in Cairo earlier this month, at which I had the privilege of
being the leader of the Canadian delegation.
As head of that delegation I would like to express the
government's sincere thanks to the very able Canadian
negotiators who piloted through the program of action on
Canada's behalf, a group of dedicated public servants who
served our country with distinction.
I should also mention the work done by a multiplicity of
support staff that worked long and hard from morning to evening
in those discussions. Many times we forget that those are the
officials who worked for several years leading up to this
conference and sometimes at the conference it is the heads of the
states or the leaders of the delegations who get the limelight or
the credit as well as the blame when perhaps things do not go per
course. I think it is important for all of us to signal to them our
appreciation for the kind of public service they have rendered on
our behalf.
Canada not only played a useful role as one of the many
countries assembled in Cairo, but I would suggest Canada
played a tremendous facilitating role. Canada was very much a
builder of bridges among different countries that perhaps had
different views and yes, some very hard concerns about certain
aspects of the draft action plan.
(1005 )
Canada did not try to seek the limelight and speak in the
public arena every day but there was a lot of behind the scenes
work in trying to foster those rapports, in trying to keep channels
open and also being respectful of the different opinions, whether
they be political, whether they be cultural or whether they be
religious. In terms of the Holy See, I think Canada among the
western countries had probably one of the better pipelines that
remained open with the Holy See and others. That is the kind of
internationalism that Canada has made a very proud tradition for
herself.
It was a truly rewarding experience as a participant to see such
a remarkable degree of consensus on sensitive and controversial
issues that strike at the very heart of the human condition.
[Translation]
There were over 180 delegations from far and wide
representing various political systems, cultures and religions.
They agreed on a comprehensive program of action.
[English]
As an international blueprint for change the program of action
represents a springboard for advancement on both population
and development. It brings together the approaches of the past
which focused on demographics and development. In the
seventies in Bucharest the answer was development. It was seen
as the panacea in terms of trying to deal with both population on
the one hand and between the nations that do the consumption.
Yet that did not work.
In the eighties the whole question was the demographics,
somehow arbitrary numbers brought down from thin air and
probably forced upon people and nations the globe over. That
did not work either.
In the 1990s as a result of Cairo we have seen the convergence
of both family planning and development, both for the
individual as well as for that country. It think it is through the
convergence of those two forces that hopefully we will be able to
unlock a number of problematic doors that have faced the
international community.
Cairo also recognized the vital role of women in achieving
social and economic goals. We mentioned in our speech from the
platform, as Mahatma Gandhi once said, when you educate a
man you educate an individual; when you educate a woman you
educate an entire community and family. I think there is
something to that. Some people get worried when we say
empowerment of women.
6296
If we look at what that means the empowerment of women
is also the empowerment of family. It is the woman in many
families who is the centrepiece and the anchor. Therefore if we
accentuate her role, her opportunities, her rights we clearly
buoy up the entire family which many times she is responsible
for.
Governments agreed not only to talk but to act, to take action
on reducing mortality rates of mothers and infants, on ensuring
equal education opportunities for girls, access to employment
opportunities for women, and pay more attention to the
reproductive health needs of adolescence and improving access
and availability of basic health care.
At the end of the day when it came time to commit our fellow
world citizens came to a degree of consensus which was
unprecedented at similar population conferences in the past. I
know that before going to Cairo there was controversy on
various elements of the draft action plan. Yet that seemed to
dominate the discussion, certainly the media attention and we
forgot that as a complicated, complex diverse world this
document enjoyed before the first gavel ever hit the desk 90 per
cent agreement.
Why is 90 per cent agreement on a document such a bad thing?
If I got 90 per cent at high school or university I would have been
a rocket scientist. If one of our parties would have attained 90
per cent of the seats across the country we would have been
superstars in terms of our political organization.
(1010 )
Why is it that when a diverse world comes together and agrees
on 90 per cent of the document somehow it has to be seen as a
negative or a failure because we have the last ten yards to go and
those are the toughest?
There was more that united this world in its action plan than
divided it. One of the most important things to come out of that
conference was that delegates took a new approach to
population issues. Instead of looking strictly at demographic
targets, just the numbers, they widened their focus in an
important way. They recognize that social and economic
development is central to achieving a balance between the
number of people on earth and their demands in terms of food,
shelter and other basic necessities of life.
It was a real coming together of north and south, east and
west, rich and poor. No one was dictating to anyone. Those days
are clearly over. There was very much a question of consensus
rather than suggesting by force or implications.
It was also heartening that the international migration issue
was treated in a truly comprehensive and balanced way for the
first time in a forum of this kind. Governments recognized not
only the negatives in terms of the mass of humanity that is on the
move, some 150 million people strong, but also the positive
benefits of migration. We were also able to bring one of those
positive messages.
Despite the challenges and difficulties that still confront us,
we were also prepared to admit that the force of migration
helped to build a country called Canada. That was something the
international representatives, both NGOs and governments, had
not heard enough of in terms of simply talking about the
problems rather than also about the advantages.
Delegates also stressed the need for increased international
co-operation to deal with the challenges that current migration
trends present to all of us. We talked about prevention,
protection and then integration of those migrants.
[Translation]
The Cairo program of action in international migration is the
first to have been approved by this many nations.
[English]
It now provides a springboard for further progress on the
international political level and on the daily operational level.
Cairo has given Canada a relevant and practical tool for
advancing its international migration agenda.
We need more bilaterals, more of a regime between and
among countries if we are to deal competently with that
movement of humanity. One country cannot do it alone. Canada
should not be expected to do it alone. No country has the
answers to that kind of dilemma.
If we put regimes together, if more countries keep their front
doors open a little, it will make life not only easier and more
bearable for those individuals seeking a home, it will also make
life easier and more bearable for those countries that have done
their share.
No one is responsible for the entire problem. Rather, we are
each responsible for our share of that situation. We as members
of the global community met in Cairo with a daunting task
before us. There were many who predicted we would dissolve
into disagreement, discord and disarray. We proved them wrong
and we proved there is consensus and commitment in the world
community to tackle global problems not only effectively but
together.
The last message Canada brought on the closing days was that
while the agreement provides us with that road map and that
consensus, the agreement is only as good as its implementation.
That too is a uniquely practical Canadian application of not
simply being happy about an agreement but really rolling up our
shirt sleeves making sure that individual member states follow
up on the commitments we tied together in Cairo. Only then can
we say that truly Cairo was a success. It clearly started as that
and we in this country in co-operation with the United Nations
will ensure that the individuals for whom this plan is intended
will certainly see the fruits of our labour.
6297
(1015)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Madam Speaker, the
impressions we have brought back from the International
Conference on Population in Cairo are too many to sum up in
just a few minutes. But I would say that the two words that
describe them the best are openness and progress.
I am glad that the minister shared with us this morning his
thoughts about this international conference. It makes us realize
the importance of such gatherings because when cultures and
deep differences that shape nations come in contact, we can
subscribe to the idea that discussion promotes openness, and
openness promotes progress and the furtherance of ideas.
For us, Cairo was above all an occasion to voice major
concerns that much not only be discussed in international fora
but also in our target communities as well as in our
parliamentary institutions.
I would like to emphasize an aspect of the conference that
distressed me deeply as a parliamentarian and a woman, and that
is the status of women. It remains a stumbling block, the central
area in which progress needs to be made if our civilization is to
embark upon the quest for the well-being of our people.
Suffering can affect both body and soul. Just think of the
plight of millions of young women around the world who are
subjected to what we call excision or infibulation.
In a world in which technology and science keep turning
everything upside down on a daily basis in the way we live and
think, two thirds of the 960 million illiterate persons on this
planet are women.
Considering that life expectancy in Zimbabwe is 44 years for
women and 40 for men, the tragic reality behind these figures
shows strikingly the major imbalance between developing
countries and industrialized countries. This geopolitical reality
was palpable during discussions at the conference. The
international community is faced with this implacable reality
that concerns us all.
The attitude change in people world-wide on issues such as
family planning, health and education, is a sign of modest
progress in the status of women, although much remains to be
done. I noticed how widespread were the concerns expressed by
women about abortion legislation. I also noticed how
government leaders can make overcautious statements on this
issue, statements that do nothing to help women in their
everyday lives. To avert a potential disaster for mankind, it is
imperative that every woman in the world be given equal
opportunity and the chance to achieve her potential. That is the
message from Cairo, the message that must be sent out.
It must also be heard in this House. We must look at what has
been accomplished in Canada in concrete term and how much
progress remains to be done. I suggest to you that, while being
ahead of many other countries on the issue of women status,
Canada still has quite a long way to go.
Economic equality for women is still far from a sure thing.
Women working for the federal government continue to be paid
less than their male counterparts. Yet, we know that to further
the cause of women and the state of the children requires that
women and men be treated as equals.
It is also imperative that our government provide protection
to women from foreign cultures by making illegal practices that
adversely affect their basic rights. In fact, I would suggest that
the government support the bill on the mutilation of feminine
genitalia that I will be introducing today in this House, the
purpose of which is precisely to protect a fair number of our
Canadian women.
I would also ask the government to take all necessary steps to
fight child poverty and to take action immediately.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I also want to
commend the public servants who worked on this program. I
know a number of people in foreign affairs put in a lot of time on
this.
Without really reviewing the conference and what happened, I
would like to highlight a few facts where I think there would be
agreement among all of us. Certainly over population is a threat
and the world's sustainability is certainly dependent on us
bringing this problem under control.
However, demographers and researchers have done an awful
lot of work on this. It is a topic for study in universities. I am not
sure that a conference of this magnitude would be necessary to
discuss the fact that there is a problem.
(1020 )
Second, the empowerment of women, giving them greater
control over their lives through increased access to education,
health care, and increasing their economic contribution in
developing countries should be strongly supported and would
have our utmost support.
Uncontrolled migration is another major problem. We have
seen what has happened in Rwanda and it is something that we
must deal with. Making things better at home is one way to help
uncontrolled migration.
It is rather a motherhood issue to say we would support the
essentials of life, such as water, food and shelter. Certainly the
preservation of basic human needs is vital and we are all
concerned about that.
6298
The spread of disease is another major issue that we must
look at when we talk about populations. We have seen the
spread of AIDS, how it started in Africa and what has happened
since. We now have the plague in India and we see how quickly
it has become a global problem.
We would like to emphasize the importance of the NGOs.
They are on the spot, and in many cases understand the issues
much better than governments do. Therefore, the promotion of
the NGO community, helping with their funding as opposed to
government to government grants is certainly commendable.
If we agree on all of these things then what do we find is the
problem with the Cairo conference? What kinds of questions do
we have to ask? Most obviously Canadians want to know if this
was the best way to achieve the goals desirable in this world.
One has to wonder just how much further we have come as a
result of this conference and what will come out of it. What new
and innovative matters were learned at this conference that we
did not know before? Was a timetable established? Will that
timetable be kept? Will there be action instead of just words?
Reference was made to the fact that a large part of the
conference was the discussion of abortion. Both sides struggled
to try to gain control of the conference. From a Reform Party
standpoint we believe that abortion is up to the individual and
not up to international bureaucrats.
Everyone agrees that increased wealth in countries leads to
smaller families. Talks aimed at promoting open markets and
economic diversification were really not discussed at this
conference. While certain aspects of the economy were
mentioned that did not seem to be leading to any concrete action.
We have to ask, was this a good expenditure of our funds?
Canada sent a huge 28 person delegation to Cairo, including
nine MPs. I was in Cairo last June. The tourism was great but we
have to ask, did those 28 people have to go and what did they
accomplish?
The estimated cost that we could find at this point was
approximately $235,000 paid for by foreign affairs. In addition
in preparatory arrangements about $2 million was spent on this
conference. Canadians are asking questions about the cost. Why
did we send that many people? Could this money have been
spent more wisely in other ways? Was this conference simply a
recipe for big government? The suggestion that more agencies
should tell people what to do is the traditional western approach
to global problems.
The Government of Canada should not be exporting
politically correct agendas. The best way to help developing
countries would be to promote open markets, economic
diversification and development, and even more important, help
improve educational opportunities for everyone around the
world.
(1025)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-277, an Act to amend the Criminal Code
(circumcision of female persons).
She said: Madam Speaker, this morning I am tabling my bill
on the circumcision of female persons.
It is very important that the government give its support to
this bill. We are all well aware that there is a movement in the
world concerned with the issue of genital mutilation of females.
That is why I encourage the government to support my bill.
We are well aware that this practice is carried on in Canada by
immigrants to this country. The Cairo conference raised this
important problem, one that is recognized by Egypt's population
minister, who would like to see such a bill studied in the people's
assembly of Egypt. I therefore hope that here in Canada, where
we pride ourselves on our progressive stance in the area of
legislation, we will move ahead, and that my bill will be debated
and passed in this House.
(The motions are deemed adopted, the bill is read the first
time and ordered to be printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present some
petitions this morning on behalf of several people who live in
and around the Edmonton area.
The petitioners state that a majority of Canadians believe that
the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples
should not be extended to same sex relationships.
They pray and request that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships and also not include
the term, which is as yet undefined, sexual orientation in the
human rights code.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):
Madam Speaker, I am presenting two more petitions today
bringing the total to six petitions that I have presented this week
on the subject of gun control.
6299
An increasing number of Canadians are concerned the
government has not recognized that we have a crime problem
in this country and not a gun problem.
The petitions are coming into my office on a daily basis and
the petitioners ask for strict enforcement of existing statutes
governing the use of firearms in the commission of an offence,
with particular emphasis on the rigorous use of section 85 of the
Criminal Code.
The petitioners oppose further legislation on firearms
acquisition and possession, and I agree with my petitioners.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, I am tabling
a petition containing the signatures of 1,500 Quebecers opposed
to the closing of the VIA rail line between Montreal and
Jonquière.
The petitioners are asking Parliament for a one-year
moratorium on the anticipated reductions in service. They are
also asking the Canadian government to hold public hearings so
that those affected by losses of service can make known their
disagreement with this decision.
As a representatvie of a remote area in Quebec experiencing
serious economic problems, I support the action undertaken by
the coalition to save the Montreal-Jonquière passenger train. I
am opposed to the systematic dismantling of our rail
infrastructures under the pretext that rail travel is an outmoded,
antiquated form of transportation too expensive to maintain.
(1030)
Without the railway, Quebec is deprived of an infrastructure
that could be important to its economic development in the years
to come.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, under
Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition from
Canadian citizens, most of whom are from my constituency.
These petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the human rights act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality,
including amendment to the human rights code to include
prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, I have six petitions to present this morning,
two of which are petitions where the petitioners pray and request
that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, in two petitions the petitioners are praying that
Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Finally, Madam Speaker, I have two petitions in which the
petitioners do not want Parliament to rescind an act of
Parliament or the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on
the right to die, on euthanasia.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to rise to present
seven petitions on behalf of my constituents from Yellowhead.
Three of these petitions come from the communities of
Neerlandia and Barrhead, two from the town of Hinton and one
petition each from Onoway and Drayton Valley.
These petitioners ask that Parliament do the following: that
Parliament not indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships; that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to
extend protection to unborn human beings; and that Parliament
not sanction the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the
ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by
20 minutes.
6300
6300
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse) moved:
That this House denounces the government for its refusal to set up a Royal
Commission of inquiry on the illegal activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service.
He said: Madam Speaker, one word was omitted from the text
of the motion. I would ask for my colleagues' consent for this
word to be deemed included in the motion. The word ``alleged''
should appear before ``illegal activities'' so that the motion
would read as follows:
That this House denounces the government for its refusal to set up a Royal
Commission of inquiry on the alleged illegal activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House to amend his motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Langlois: Madam Speaker, today the Official Opposition
moves the following motion:
That this House denounces the government for its refusal to set up a Royal
Commission of inquiry on the alleged illegal activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service.
(1035)
This motion has become necessary following the allegations
made about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in recent
months and the events revealed and corroborated during the
same period.
In addition, the many obstacles encountered by the
Parliamentary Sub-Committee on National Security chaired by
the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River make it even
more imperative to set up a royal commission of inquiry
responsible for investigating the alleged actions of CSIS.
CSIS has become a state within a state as it is answerable only
to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, commonly
known as SIRC, which reports to the Solicitor General himself
who, in turn, discloses to the House only some of the few
elements he deems relevant.
Although the enabling legal provisions give SIRC very wide
powers of investigation, the fact remains that it controls only the
elements voluntarily submitted by CSIS.
The very composition of the SIRC greatly undermines our
trust in this institution. In fact, of its five members, three were
appointed on the recommendation of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada and one on the recommendation
of the New Democratic Party of Canada. These two parties no
longer enjoy official status in the current Parliament.
Without enforcement legislation, a simple sense of ethics
would dictate that the people appointed on the recommendation
of political parties no longer recognized in this House should
resign so that the Review Committee can reflect the current
membership of this House as elected by the people last October
25.
The Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, and the second
opposition party, the Reform Party, could then be represented on
the review committee. However, this would only be a
provisional measure until the act is amended to abolish the
Review Committee and restrict to parliamentarians the power to
control and monitor CSIS.
What could be more normal and healthy in a democracy than
putting this function under the exclusive jurisdiction of elected
officials? Our American neighbours have shown us the way by
demonstrating for many decades that such a system of
parliamentary control is the only one acceptable in a free and
democratic society.
The royal commission whose creation we are calling for today
is in no way intended to compete with the Sub-Committee on
National Security. All the Official Opposition is asking for is to
obtain the most results in the least amount of time.
We fully recognize the legitimacy and authority of the
Sub-Committee on National Security and we also acknowledge
that Parliament never abdicated its powers to CSIS or its Review
Committee. Nevertheless, given the present situation and the
composition of the review committee, we must expect
parliamentary guerrilla war with the members of SIRC instead
of full and total co-operation from them.
Creating a royal commission would keep members of the
review committee from using delaying tactics to avoid being
accountable.
Last week, the Solicitor General, in answer to a question from
the Official Opposition, refused to set up a royal commission, on
the pretext that SIRC's internal verification was sufficient.
(1040)
You need only see how the meeting of the Sub-Committee on
National Security went on September 13 to realize that SIRC
members are past masters in the art of subterfuge, rather than in
investigation. The minister should definitely review what
happened at that meeting. He would see that clearly the
Sub-Committee on National Security will not obtain from the
members of SIRC the full and entire co-operation which it is
entitled to expect.
6301
He should find grounds for reviewing his position and
establishing a royal commission of inquiry without delay. We
cannot remain in the dark where SIRC is keeping us, when
serious charges have been leveled against CSIS. Let us see what
these charges are. First, CSIS is accused of having used people
like a certain Grant Bristow to set up or infiltrate the Heritage
Front, a Canadian neo-Nazi organization based in Toronto
which advocates white supremacy. The purpose of this
organization is directly contrary to the values of Quebec and
Canada, as proclaimed many times in our most important laws.
Grant Bristow reportedly continued his work or was recycled
as a bodyguard of the leader of the Reform Party of Canada in
the last election campaign. This Reform ``volunteer'' was
allegedly well paid by CSIS for doing this infiltration work. We
are entitled to know whether the Reform Party of Canada, which
has no other ambition than to take power through the normal
democratic channels, was infiltrated on CSIS's orders or with its
knowledge or if some ill-intentioned individual, following
written or verbal instructions, or with CSIS's guilty silence,
penetrated the inner circle of the Reform Party leader.
Was the Reform Party of Canada at any time considered a
threat to Canada by CSIS or by the Conservative government?
We have eloquent proof in this House that the Reform Party was
a real threat to the Progressive Conservative Party, but surely
not to Canadian democratic institutions.
It is possible that CSIS, either at the request of the
Conservative government or on its own initiative, decided to
infiltrate the Reform Party, knowing that it was acting with
complete impunity, since its review committee was controlled
by a majority of people appointed by the Conservatives who, by
virtue of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, were
directly accountable to the Solicitor General of that same
Conservative government.
If the Reform Party of Canada was indeed infiltrated and
considered, at one time or another, to be a threat to Canada, what
was the attitude of these people towards other opposition
parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, whose ultimate political
raison d'être is to help Quebec become a sovereign state?
We want to know how CSIS was able to resist the temptation
of finding out a little more about the Quebec sovereignist
movement. Let us not forget that, in the seventies, the RCMP
stole the list of Parti Quebecois members, burned barns and also
stole dynamite.
(1045)
Is it possible that CSIS may have decided to pursue similar
activities? A royal commission of inquiry would, in all
likelihood, provide the answer.
The Official Opposition is not the only one requesting that all
the facts be known. The chairman of the Sub-committee on
National Security, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge
River, also asked for some explanations, as reported by the
media on September 13.
Another allegation was made against CSIS. Indeed, the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may have come under
surveillance by CSIS after reporting that it was conducting an
investigation into possible links between Heritage Front and
some Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia. Given the behaviour
of some soldiers in Somalia, the existence of such links is
plausible.
Are Grant Bristow and other agents part of a plot by CSIS to
spy on the CBC?
Another allegation made is to the effect that CSIS, Grant
Bristow or other individuals who may or may not be related to
the neo-nazi group Heritage Front have targetted the Canadian
Jewish Congress, by leaking information on Canadian Jewish
organizations to violent American racists, by promoting the use
of violence by members of Heritage Front and by organizing a
campaign to harass anti-racist leaders by telephone.
According to another allegation made, CSIS apparently
followed every step of French secret service agents interested in
the Quebec sovereignist movement. Consequently, even if CSIS
did not directly investigate Quebec sovereignist forces, which
have been called ``the enemy within'' in this House by the
member for Beaver River, it may have indirectly obtained
privileged information through its contacts with the French
foreign security services, the DGSE.
According to a Canadian Press dispatch published in Le
Journal de Québec on Friday, September 9, 1994, CSIS is said to
have infiltrated the Canadian Union of Postal Workers during a
labour conflict to provide useful information to Canada Post
management. The same newspaper also reported that other
documents confirmed the existence of a link between CSIS and
some foreign secret service organizations, including Mossad in
Israel and the secret services in Italy and Jamaica.
Finally, some light should be shed regarding claims made by
Brian McInnis, an advisor to former Solicitor General Doug
Lewis, who admitted violating the law by giving a confidential
note to the Toronto Star. Mr. McInnis added that CSIS also
violated the law by infiltrating the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, because that network was inquiring into possible
links between the racist organization Heritage Front and
Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia. Following these allegations,
the RCMP arrested Mr. McInnis and thoroughly searched his
home.
As you can see, some serious accusations have been made and
too many questions remain unanswered. Even though the
Sub-Committee on National Security will look into this issue,
the Official Opposition remains convinced that only a royal
commission of inquiry with a very wide mandate can inform
Quebecers and Canadians on CSIS activities.
6302
(1050)
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this
issue. I am a bit surprised by the fascination of members of the
Bloc with this case. They appear to be very disappointed that
they were not the organization or the political party with which
CSIS was involved. It seems to be a clear case of CSIS envy.
The attitude of the Bloc must be questioned. The original
motion shows an inclination to condemn the government for the
refusal to initiate a royal commission on the illegal activities of
CSIS rather than the allegation. I think the Bloc gets ahead of
itself in this particular matter.
I have often listened to the Bloc accuse the Reform Party of
using wild west justice and of being awfully tough on crime, but
at least we believe people are innocent until they are proven
guilty. The Bloc seems already to be assuming the guilt of CSIS
before in fact it has been proven as such.
There are a number of allegations out there and I have made
more than a few of them myself, but I am not aware at this time
of any evidence that CSIS was involved in illegal activities.
There is a significant amount of evidence however that
someone was involved in wrongdoing. But was it CSIS that was
responsible for this wrongdoing, or was it Grant Bristow who
was responsible, or was it the previous government?
How can the Bloc accuse CSIS of committing illegal
activities when the investigations are presently being
conducted? I am not the biggest fan of the Security Intelligence
Review Committee and that is quite obvious. I am prepared to
give them the benefit of the doubt until the report is tabled.
SIRC is actively investigating the role of CSIS in this issue. I
know because I sat in on a SIRC interview. I know it is looking
into it. I know it has spoken to a number of officials within the
Reform Party. I know it has spoken to a number of people who
have pertinent information about this case.
There is no reason to doubt the efficiency of the SIRC
investigation. However, once the investigation is over we will
get the report. At that time the pressure will be on committee
members as to whether or not their report is accurate and
whether their report is enough. Their integrity will be at stake at
that time.
If there is evidence of wrongdoing by the previous
government, will the Conservative members of SIRC
enthusiastically pursue this information in their report? As the
saying goes, only time will tell. I am encourage, however, that
SIRC members have said they want the report to be as public as
possible.
I am still concerned about what definition SIRC uses for
national security and the reasons for national security. I will
explain why I am concerned. On May 10, SIRC appeared before
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. When
discussing the role of CSIS in technology transfer it mentioned
it was limited to eight key sectors. When asked to identify those
eight key sectors, the response was: ``We are not at liberty to
identify those eight key sectors''.
Exactly one week earlier the director of CSIS, Mr. Ray Protti,
had appeared before the same justice committee. He too chose to
talk about technology transfer. He stated that the investigation
was: ``in those high technology areas like aerospace, nuclear,
biochemical and telecommunications''.
Here is an example of where the director of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service was being more open than its
review body. This certainly does not bode well for a truly open
and public report. However we must give SIRC the opportunity
to come up with the report. Its report will then go to the Solicitor
General who I understand will determine what will be released.
(1055)
The Solicitor General has assured the House that it is his
objective: ``to make as much as possible the report public''. He
went on to state that he would seek legal advice to help him
make up his mind on how much he could make public.
I would like to give him a little advice now. Everything should
be released except the information about CSIS sources other
than Grant Bristow. There is no reason why the entire issue
cannot be discussed openly.
While no one has ever accused members of the Heritage Front
of being Rhodes Scholars, it is safe to assume even they have
figured out that CSIS was investigating them. Likewise I think it
is a safe bet to assume they now think Grant Bristow was a
source. There really is nothing left to hid. Why would we even
try?
If the SIRC report that the Solicitor General releases to the
public is not complete then the credibility of CSIS, of SIRC, of
the minister and of the government will all suffer. Yes, CSIS
needs a certain amount of secrecy to operate efficiently, but it
cannot operate without the confidence of the Canadian people.
The release of the report is all about confidence. If it is
thorough and completely public, confidence in CSIS will be
there even if CSIS is guilty of some minor indiscretions.
However, if the report is heavily censored in the interest of
national security there will be little public confidence even if
CSIS is vindicated. Any evidence of any significant censoring of
SIRC's report will automatically be viewed as a cover-up. If this
is the case, not only will the Reform Party be joining the Bloc in
a call for a royal commission; we will be leading the demand.
6303
The accusations that have been made are extremely serious,
striking at the very heart of the democratic process. To us in
Reform the most important question that must be answered is:
Did the previous government use CSIS for partisan political
purposes? At the very least we have a Conservative Solicitor
General who was aware of the efforts of the Heritage Front to
infiltrate the Reform Party and he chose not to advise the
Reform Party of such.
Some may ask if he should have. I asked somebody who
should know. I asked Jean-Jacques Blais, a former Liberal
Solicitor General and one of the first members of SIRC. Mr.
Blais replied that if he had the information when he was
Solicitor General he would have notified someone in the Reform
Party. When asked why Mr. Lewis did not, Mr. Blais said he
could not answer for the previous government.
It will be interesting when the former Solicitor General
appears before the subcommittee on national security in October
to answer this question himself. However there are questions
that CSIS must answer itself.
Who made the final decision permitting Bristow to attend the
Reform Party meetings? I cannot imagine the source handler
himself making this type of decision. Just the mere fact that
Bristow, publicly known to be a member of a white supremacist
neo-Nazi organization, showed up at a Reform Party rally had a
detrimental effect on the party. CSIS officials must have known
that his mere presence could have a negative effect on the party.
Since he would not have been sent there without high level
approval, we need to know who approved his attendance and
why. We need to know why Grant Bristow urged Heritage Front
members to take out Reform Party memberships. We need to
know why Grant Bristow even paid the $10 membership fee for
some of these Heritage Front members. We need to know why
Grant Bristow was so intent on getting Heritage Front members
into the Reform Party when he refused to take out a membership
himself.
(1100 )
We also need to know if any of this had to do with Bristow's
allegiance to the Progressive Conservative Party as indicated by
his work on the Hon. Otto Jelinek's 1988 campaign.
These are the types of answers that we are expecting in the
SIRC report and we will not be satisfied unless these questions
are definitively answered. We will also want the answers to
some questions like why did Wolfgang Droege frequently show
up at Reform Party meetings after he had been expelled from the
party? Why did he just come and sit at these meetings without
trying to say anything, without trying to distribute any of his
literature and without trying to make any contacts with people in
the crowd? Why did he usually have a local Toronto television
crew there to film him sitting in the audience at these Reform
Party meetings? Most important, why did Wolfgang Droege
appear to have some money on him when he was attending all of
these meetings?
Let us not stop with Bristow or Droege. Less than two weeks
ago another Heritage Front member, Max French, announced
that he was running for mayor of Scarborough. At his press
conference he proudly announced he was a member of both the
Heritage Front and the Reform Party; a proud member of the
Heritage Front, yes, but he certainly was not a proud member of
the Reform Party.
After the expulsion of other Heritage Front members from the
Reform Party, Max French stated that Reformers were race
traitors and would be lined up against the wall with the rest of
them when the revolution came. He does not sound like an
enthusiastic member of any party when those kinds of
statements are made. Why did he keep his Reform membership?
It is answers to these questions that SIRC must provide. The
Solicitor General must release these answers if it is to maintain
any credibility.
I mentioned earlier that what is at stake here is the entire
democratic system. Let me explain to the House why I say that. I
have talked to a number of Reform candidates from southern
Ontario. They advised that they had great difficulty overcoming
the smear campaign that Reformers were racist. This campaign
was led by the Conservative Party. In four ridings, none of which
had a sitting Liberal MP, the Reform Party finished second by
less than 5,000 votes. If just 10 voters per poll in those ridings
had voted Reform instead of Liberal but did not because they
were worried about the racist smears we would be sitting in a
very different House today.
The consequences of the racist smear campaign on Reformers
are enormous and questions must be answered. With regard to
the investigation into CSIS, we are prepared to wait for SIRC to
complete its investigations and to make its report. We are
prepared to wait for this report to be filed with the minister. We
are also prepared to wait until the minister makes his report
public. However, what we are not prepared to do is to wait for a
cover-up.
If the SIRC report that is made public does not answer our
questions we will then be more than happy to join with the
member from Bellechasse in calling for a royal commission.
There are a number of other issues that do not fall under
SIRC's responsibilities. There are a number of other issues in
this controversy that have to be brought to light. Those issues
are the handling of documents by ministers' aides within the
former Solicitor General's office, an antiquated Official Secrets
Act and the way it is enforced. The way that government
information is classified leaves a lot of room for discussion.
6304
These issues can and will be examined by the subcommittee
on national security. While we have similar concerns as the
Bloc about the political make-up of SIRC, the make-up of the
subcommittee does reflect the current Parliament. It is the
subcommittee on national security that should first deal with
these issues of classifying information, of handling high
security documents and of reviewing the Official Secrets Act.
(1105)
If the subcommittee cannot resolve these issues in this House
then another royal commission into Canada's security
intelligence service would be warranted.
First this House must make every effort to get to the bottom of
this to avert the additional cost to the Canadian taxpayers of a
royal commission. We have the vehicles in place. We have CSIS
doing an internal investigation. We have SIRC doing a watchdog
report and we have the national security subcommittee to
investigate it.
What we do need is to have the will to be fully accountable to
the Canadian people, for only in being fully accountable will we
maintain the support and the confidence of the Canadian people
in the job that we are trying to do.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Madam
Speaker, there are problems, to say the least, with the Bloc's
motion.
One of these problems has been identified by the Bloc itself
when the proposer of the motion conceded there was the
unfortunate absence in it of a key word, allegation. The motion
originally spoke about illegal activities of CSIS as if it had been
proven that such activities had in fact occurred.
As I have said in this House and outside the House the many
allegations made recently about CSIS activities are so far just
that, allegations. By the way, it is important to stress that these
allegations relate to a period well before this government took
office and before I assumed the responsibilities of Solicitor
General.
To conclude that CSIS acted illegally requires analysis and
conclusions based on solid evidence, that is based on definite
facts, related to the legal framework created by this Parliament
for the operations of CSIS and other relevant laws as well.
That is why I believe that Canadians should await the
conclusion of the work, the investigation of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, into what I repeat are so far
only allegations.
The requirement for the creation of the Security Intelligence
Review Committee, SIRC, when Parliament passed the
legislation creating the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
in 1984 was designed to provide Parliament, Canadians
generally and the Solicitor General with an independent review
of CSIS activities.
This body has over the years provided important insight and
analysis for ministers, Parliament and the public regarding the
operations of CSIS and has made recommendations to ensure
that CSIS continues to operate as Parliament intended when it
adopted the CSIS act.
A reading of successive SIRC reports over the years, and I am
talking about reports available to the public, shows that the
SIRC as a permanent body at arm's length both from CSIS and
the government has found areas for improvement since CSIS
was created over 10 years ago. It has also found reason to
confirm the value of the work of CSIS in the interests of all
Canadians.
(1110 )
The point is that the SIRC was created exactly for the task that
the Official Opposition in its motion says we need a royal
commission to perform.
The SIRC exists to provide the review of all CSIS duties and
functions. More specifically, under section 54 of the act the
SIRC can investigate any matter that relates to the performance
by CSIS of its duties and functions, and then provide the
Solicitor General with a special report of this investigation.
A review of any such matter and the production of a special
report is precisely what the SIRC has undertaken to do in
response to the recent allegations. It has also stated that it
intends to have a report as soon as possible. It has said that it
intends to have a report available, in other words in the coming
month of October.
SIRC has built up a body of expertise and experience that I
think will prove extremely valuable to this present
investigation.
The Official Opposition in its motion calls for the creation of
a royal commission. What is a royal commission? It is an
individual or a group of individuals independent of government,
appointed by order in council, that is by the cabinet, with wide
powers to look into a matter or matters of public concern.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee is a body of
individuals appointed by order in council, by the cabinet, under
the CSIS legislation to look into and report on an important
matter or matters involving the activities of CSIS.
Like an ordinary royal commission it is independent of
government. It is independent and at arm's length from CSIS
and the minister. It has wide powers to carry out its mandate.
That is why I say that in my view it is in effect like a permanent
royal commission with the mandate of keeping under review the
activities of CSIS and carrying out special inquiries into these
activities, either of its own accord or at the request of the
minister.
6305
We have in effect already in place what the Bloc is calling
for in its motion. The spokesperson for the Reform Party made
the important point that since CSIS is already carrying out this
work, there is no need for the creation of another body that,
looking at what the history of royal commissions indicates,
would involve considerable additional expense for the taxpayer.
[Translation]
Parliament created SIRC precisely to ensure that so-called
wrongdoings such as the ones which are being raised in this
House today undergo objective investigation.
Moreover, SIRC was given important statutory powers to
carry out its mandate. SIRC is authorized to obtain from CSIS
all necessary information to fulfil its responsibilities, including
documents, reports and explanations. Obviously, SIRC has the
abilities and the powers required to investigate the allegations
being made.
The Official Opposition was unable to prove that we should
set up another review agency to do exactly what SIRC is
authorized and able to do.
[English]
As I have said, it is my intention, my objective, to make as
much of the CSIS report into the recent allegations as public as
possible, subject of course to the requirements of any relevant
legislation. In fact if the legislation permits me to do so I
certainly would like to make the entire report public. Mind you
the spokesperson for the Official Opposition herself has pointed
out there may be some justifiable reasons for some of a report of
this nature not to be made public and her views should be taken
into account.
(1115)
I believe the SIRC investigation and the preparation of its
report should continue. While it should take the time it needs to
do the job properly, as I have said SIRC has already indicated it
wants to complete that work as soon as possible. It expects to
have a report available in October.
I should also mention that the CSIS act provides for an
Inspector General to report to the minister about CSIS. The
Inspector General has been quoted publicly as saying that he
himself is undertaking reviews with regard to policies and
procedures governing the use of human sources by CSIS and the
handling of CSIS documents. These reports will be another
valuable source of information and analysis for me to use as a
basis for seeing if action should be taken with regard to what has
been alleged over the past weeks and months.
I want to stress as I have done before that I will not hesitate to
have corrective action taken where such action is in fact
necessary on the basis of real proof that there are definite
problems to be corrected with regard to the work of CSIS.
However, I do not think it is fair or reasonable to make
judgments in advance, as the Bloc has done in its motion, as to
the value or the quality of the work of SIRC in this matter before
that work is even completed.
To conclude, I submit that what the Bloc's motion calls for is
not in fact necessary since Parliament in passing the law
creating a framework for the operation of CSIS created an
oversight mechanism for it. This involved the creation of SIRC,
which I have said I look on as being very much like a permanent
royal commission with a specific mandate for the ongoing
review of the work of CSIS.
I believe we should allow this body to complete its work on
the recent allegations. Then we should make use of the report
which as I have said I intend to make public as much as is
possible in the light of the requirements of the relevant
legislation. Then decisions can be made on what action may be
necessary to take in the light of definite proof, if there is any,
with respect to problems regarding the work of CSIS.
However I submit that at this time the motion presented by the
Bloc calls for action that is not necessary. It duplicates the work
of a body created by Parliament which is like a royal
commission. We should allow SIRC to complete its work so that
its report can be completed and we can have access to it and take
any action necessitated by that report.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. Solicitor General
acknowledge that he will take into consideration my comments
about how much of the report should be made public. I hope he
notes that the only exclusions I made were the names of
additional sources other than Grant Bristow. I feel all else
should be made public.
My concern is that some of the legislation he may be looking
at to see how much flexibility he has is outdated. I would like
some assurance from the hon. minister that he will use some
flexibility in the interpretation of these outdated pieces of
legislation so that he is not restricted and bound by
classifications of material that do not apply in this case.
I would like some assurance from the hon. minister that he
will be open minded in the interpretation of this legislation to
allow a more open process.
(1120 )
While I have the opportunity I would also like to ask for the
minister's assurance that he will support the efforts of the
subcommittee on national security to further investigate this
issue beyond that which SIRC can do. I hope the minister will
give full co-operation to and persuade government members of
this House to support the subcommittee in its efforts to get to the
bottom of this.
6306
Mr. Gray: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
comments. I want to make clear that the legal advice I will seek
cannot be limited to those comments, no matter how useful or
well-intended.
The hon. member says that certain legislation is outdated. I
suppose she is talking about the Official Secrets Act. That may
be the case but since that legislation is passed by Parliament I
cannot ignore it, whatever my personal views about the
relevance of the legislation today.
That is why I have to seek appropriate legal advice from law
officers of the crown with respect to how far I can go in releasing
the SIRC report and with respect to responding to any relevant
legislation. I want to be very open minded and forthcoming, but
as I said I am not in a position to ignore the relevant laws on this
matter as adopted by Parliament.
Certainly the work of the subcommittee can be very useful. I
cannot say what the committee should be doing but perhaps at
some point it may want to carry out a review of the relevance of
the current provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
However, all of us in this House are still bound by the relevant
legislation on this matter which has been passed by this House
and Parliament as a whole. All of us have to take that into
account in our activities.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Madam
Speaker, I think the Solicitor General does not understand the
object of the request made by the Official Opposition. The
request for a royal commission of inquiry in this case is not just
a whim.
If you look back over past events, you see that so far we have
had the McDonald Commission and the MacKenzie
Commission, which were both Royal Commissions of Inquiry.
Meanwhile, some joint committees have examined the issue of
national security. But the only reports Parliament has followed
up on are those of the McDonald and the MacKenzie Royal
Commissions. Parliament has always ignored the reports tabled
by the joint committees, except to implement two or three minor
and watered-down recommendations to amend the legislation.
A royal commission of inquiry would help us to clarify the
whole situation and might even prove to be in the interest of the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which is increasingly
losing its credibility in the mind of the Canadian taxpayers.
As Solicitor General, you seem to trust SIRC completely.
Then, tell me why SIRC is not aware of the allegations recently
published in the newspapers, as you put it? Because these
allegations relate to events which happened during 1990 and
1991. We are now in 1994-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but he undoubtedly knows that
questions must be put to the Chair. Members cannot directly ask
questions to the minister concerned. The minister may answer
the question.
[English]
Mr. Gray: Madam Speaker, the McDonald royal commission
was created to do its work at a time when there was no equivalent
of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The security
service of the RCMP did not operate within a specific legal
framework as does the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
and there was no mechanism for oversight or review. At that
time something had to be set up to carry out the kind of work that
SIRC is now mandated to do under the relevant legislation. It
was a very different situation.
Now we have a civilian security service that was created
specifically by Parliament and which has a specific mandate and
authority. It has limitations. For example it cannot look into
matters involving lawful dissent; it cannot look into lawful
advocacy, protest or dissent. This is clearly set out in the law.
(1125 )
We are dealing with a very different situation today. The
experience of the McDonald commission is not relevant. As I
said, it related to a time when there was no civilian security
service operating in a specific legal framework with an
oversight system as we have now.
Finally, the hon. member asked me whether SIRC was seized
with certain allegations. Since SIRC is a body independent from
me, I am not in a position to comment.
I conclude by saying I am continuously amazed by the interest
of Bloc members in anything with the word royal connected to it
and in having a royal body set up. Perhaps they should check
with Mr. Parizeau who could possibly be very upset to see the
interest of the Bloc in this House in relying on and calling for a
royal commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the motion put forward
by the Bloc Quebecois today because I think that it is imperative
that we have such a debate. The question we must ask ourselves
is why we are now requesting a royal commission of inquiry on
the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
I use the term royal commission of inquiry not because I am a
royalist, but because I have to use the tools made available to us
by this Parliament. Moreover, I would like you, Madam
Speaker, to assure the Solicitor General that in an independent
Quebec, we will not call such a body a royal commission of
inquiry, but rather a state commission, a commission of inquiry
of the sovereign state of Quebec.
6307
Some hon. members: Right on!
Mr. Bellehumeur: That being said, it may be necessary to
look at the origin of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Act to be able to understand the whole problem. You will see that
it goes back to the commission of inquiry concerning certain
activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, better known
as the McDonald Commission, which published its report in
1981. The commission had been established in 1977 in the wake
of a series of illegal acts and practices by the former security
service of the RCMP.
The McDonald Commission had the mandate to look into
illegal activities on the part of a supposedly reputable institution
respected by the majority of English Canadians, and I am talking
about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, better known under
the acronym RCMP. It is important to go back to the 70s to really
understand the history of the secret service in Canada, but first,
let us look at the act by which the Canadian secret service was
created.
In 1966, the RCMP became the responsibility of the Solicitor
General when it was given the status of a government
department. Before that, the police force was under the authority
of the Minister of Justice. The reorganization that took place in
1970 was the result of another royal commission of inquiry, the
MacKenzie Commission, which published its report in 1969.
The commission's main recommendation was to create a
civilian security service. The commission considered it
inappropriate to leave security functions to the ordinary police
services, and the special operations branch did not have the
complexity or the analysis expertise deemed necessary to play
its role in security matters.
It also recommended that a bill be passed to authorize
investigation methods like undercover operations, and to
improve the security screening process, including the addition
of an appeal procedure. Accordingly, a security intelligence
service was established under a civilian director. Until then, you
could tell RCMP agents by their red uniform, but security agents
became less easily identifiable and then, I am sure you agree,
unrecognizable.
Let us go back to the 1970s period when things went awry.
Uniformed officers, unlike civilians, all had positions of power.
At the end of the 1970s, for example, not a single civilian had a
position above that of an officer in a planning or operations
sub-branch. RCMP employees, therefore, wielded absolute
power. Not only did they have police powers, but they were also
had considerable leeway with the structure. Civilians knew
almost nothing of what was going on in that section of the
RCMP.
(1130)
Ironically, the same thing is happening in 1994 with the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but this time,
Parliament itself and the general public in Canada and Quebec
are kept in the dark concerning our intelligence service.
Questions are asked, but there are no real answers. The fact that
elected representatives could not get near or watch the RCMP in
those days led to wrongdoings. And believe me, there were a lot
of wrongdoings.
The October crisis stunned everybody, both the Quebec
population and the government. The then Prime Minister, Mr.
Trudeau, did not know, when he invoked the War Measures Act,
that he was unleashing a mad dog. I hope, and I would like to
believe, that he was not aware of that.
The government realized that it knew very little about the
sovereignty philosophy in Quebec. Therefore, it asked the
RCMP to adopt an active strategy on that issue and to get all the
information it could on the bad separatists.
In several cases and in various contexts, members of the
security service committed extremely illegal acts and I think it
is worth mentioning again some of the actions taken by the
RCMP during those days. They set fire to a barn in order to
prevent the so-called separatists or sovereignists from holding a
meeting. They broke into the offices of a leftist news agency in
Montreal, stole and destroyed files, broke into the offices of the
Parti Quebecois, a legitimate political party, and even stole lists
of members of that democratically recognized party.
When I think about those days, I still shiver with rage. It is a
pitiful page in the history of Canada, especially when you see
that one of the people involved, Mr. Normand Chamberland,
who was accused of stealing dynamite at the time, has been
promoted within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and
is now the Deputy Commissioner for Quebec, no less.
It seems that those responsible for enforcing the law can break
it once in a while and even get rewarded for it. It is also
important to note that the RCMP did not commit that kind of
abuse only in the 1970s and only against separatists. The
McDonald Commission indicated that other illegal activities
had occurred, such as opening of mail, illegal access to
supposedly confidential government information, planned
prostitution, blackmail and other actions of that type which had
been taking place for a long time with regard to various aspects
of national security, from spying and counter-intelligence to
subversion.
The main recommendation of the McDonald Report
advocated the creation of a totally independent intelligence
service of a civil nature and it did so for the same reasons as the
MacKenzie Commission did, that is the need to restructure the
agency with a view to collecting and analyzing data instead of
using mainly deterrence and repression. Therefore, the mandate
of the proposed new agency would be defined by legislation and
the law would state clearly which threats to Canada's security
the agency would be authorized to investigate. The definition
would cover four areas: first, espionage and sabotage; second,
foreign interference; third, political violence and terrorism; and
6308
finally, subversive activities aimed at destroying the democratic
system.
The report also recommended that the new agency be
prohibited from investigating legitimate advocacy, protest or
dissent, and that it not have the power to implement security
measures.
All this led to the McDonald report published in 1981. The
government indicated that it would accept the principal
recommendation to create a civilian security intelligence
service. Subsequently, a special transition group was set up at
the Department of the Solicitor General to prepare legislation to
that end.
In 1983, Bill C-157 was tabled in the House of Commons to
create the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or CSIS,
along the lines recommended by the McDonald Commission but
with some major changes and additions.
As a result of severe criticism from the public that the
service's mandate was too broad, the bill died on the Order
Paper. During the second session of the 32nd Parliament, a new
bill was tabled in the House. This was Bill C-9 which, for all
intents and purposes, incorporated all the recommendations of
the commission. Parliament adopted the bill, with very few
changes, in 1984.
(1135)
The legislation was intended to restrict the activities of the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service and create monitoring
mechanisms to ensure that the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service did not exceed its mandate.
Central to the bill is the definition of the expression ``threats
to the security of Canada,'' which determines the general
parameters of CSIS. The definition also specifies that lawful
advocacy, protest or dissent are not included. If we consider this
definition and the allegations published in the media, especially
about spying on a democratically recognized party-we have
seen that happen before-and investigating the CBC and certain
leaders of the Canadian Jewish Congress, there are some very
real problems.
CSIS members seem to have trouble with the definition of
lawful advocacy. In any case, if the past is any indication of what
the future holds, we can assume that members of CSIS have the
same attitude as the former RCMP intelligence section, which
does not augur well for the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service. We have the right to know, and we have the right to call
for a royal commission of inquiry.
As far as the basic duties of the service are concerned, these
are set forth in section 12: to collect by investigation, and
analyse and retain, information and intelligence respecting
threats to security. According to section 13 of the Act, the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service may provide security
assessments on future government employees. Finally, under
section 16, CSIS may assist in the collection of information
relating to defence and national affairs, by investigating and
conducting surveillance of any persons, other than Canadian
citizens or permanent residents.
As we consider the history of intelligence services in Canada
and their questionable activities, which always raise a number
of questions in my mind and in the minds of many taxpayers in
Canada and Quebec, there is one question we have every right to
ask: ``Who watches the intelligence agency that is watching
us?''
One would expect that in 1994, our institutions would be
monitored by people elected through the democratic process as
the legitimate representatives of the present Parliament of
Canada. Not at all, that is not the way it works in Canada, in
1994. Legislation was enacted to establish the office of the
Inspector General and the Security Intelligence Review
Committee, better known by its acronym, SIRC, as we said
earlier.
The Inspector General is appointed by the Governor in
Council and his duties are to review the operational activities of
CSIS and to report to the Solicitor General and SIRC, as well as
to monitor the legality and relevance of these activities.
SIRC is made up of five members maximum, chosen from
Privy Council members, appointed by the Governor in Council
after consultation between the Prime Minister and the leaders of
recognized opposition parties in the House of commons. We will
see that it is not always the case. Its role is to review CSIS
operations and to report to the minister and Parliament.
When it comes to reporting to Parliament, MPs are certainly
not overwhelmed with information. As parliamentarians we
know virtually nothing of what goes on within the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service. This department spends millions
of dollars, but Parliament, the supreme authority, knows almost
nothing.
Those who watch over CSIS were never elected to the job.
They are political appointees, and MPs are deliberately
excluded.
Do you think I am reassured by the fact that the deeds, or
alleged acts, committed under the Conservative government are
being investigated by a group with a Conservative majority?
Certainly not, it rather worries me. Who are these valiant
watchdogs, that some journalists humorously call lapdogs?
Three of them are personal friends of the former Prime Minister
of Canada, and very, very close to the Conservative Party.
Another comes from the ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada; he
is a former president of the party. You know him, he is the
lawyer who is getting $250,000 to do some kind of inquiry with
some native representatives. As a hobby, he sits on the review
committee. Quite a review he must do.
6309
(1140)
The last member was appointed from among the ranks of the
NDP. Ever since I have been sitting on the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs and on the Sub-Committee on
National Security-I have not seen the latter yet and I wonder
whether it is really interested in meeting with us or even in doing
its job-I have doubts about the kind of report all of them will be
able to produce.
Where are the members representing the current Official
Opposition? Where is the member supposed to represent the
other opposition party in this House? They are nowhere to be
found. We are asked to trust five individuals, appointed by our
predecessors, who are looking into extremely important
activities which have an impact on their own political party.
The main objective in creating CSIS was probably to have
some control or to check into allegations but in reality this has
not happened.
As crazy as it may seem, when the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service was in the planning stages, some members
and certain opposition parties said that there was no need to
create a civilian body and that all that was needed was a piece of
legislation clearly setting out the RCMP's frame of reference so
that it would not go overboard.
For someone from Quebec who has lived through the 1970s,
which were a turning point in the history of the province, this
seems rather strange. I am not referring to myself as I was still
quite young in those days. It is somewhat ridiculous to trust this
agency once more, but again some people thought that the
RCMP could still do the job.
The only thing I find reassuring is that when the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service was created, there were those who
thought that its mandate was too broad. I could not agree more
with them and history has proven them right.
Similarly, the definition of the word ``threat'' is very
controversial. And again I agree with those who thought at the
time that it was so vague that it could encompass a variety of
activities not even closely related to real security. Current
events have borne this out.
The government is of the opinion that the definition should be
interpreted in the context of, on one hand, the provisions
protecting legitimate dissidence and limiting the agency's
authority to what is strictly necessary and, on the other, the new
monitoring and surveillance system. According to the
government, within such a context, the definition is a reasonable
one.
When I look more closely at the investigative power of SIRC
and its access to information, I get scared. I get very, very
scared.
Another concern of mine is the range of the SIRC mandate
that allows it to use any investigation technique. The two most
serious issues have to do with how this organization is being
monitored: first, the office of the Inspector General must have
access to information, and second, so must SIRC.
We must acknowledge that, before the Sub-Committee on
National Security, I was told that SIRC has access to every
document possible. Indeed, it has access to all this
documentation, but only if the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service agrees to hand it out. And that is not how things work out
in reality.
SIRC does not have access to Cabinet documents, either. Yet,
as we have learned recently, an assistant of a former Solicitor
General of Canada can walk out with two cases of documents,
with no questions asked, while SIRC is not even aware of the
existence of such documentation. This really belongs in the
realm of fiction.
Why can we not grant this investigative power to people who
have a vested interest in the truth and are able to reassure the
public? In fact, this issue was raised when Bill C-157 was
debated. We examined the possibility of implementing some
kind of parliamentary review, as recommended by the
McDonald Commission. At the time, both Opposition parties
and some government members supported the creation of a
special Parliamentary committee which would have had access
to information regarding CSIS to ensure that it does not overstep
its mandate.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is almost up,
yet I could go on and on.
I want the government to know that there is no way we can get
definite answers to our questions if we leave it to SIRC. I have
sat and I still sit on the Sub-Committee on National Security.
When an elected member of Parliament, a legitimate
representative of the people is told by witnesses that they do not
have to answer either yes or no, we have a problem. A very
serious problem indeed. The system is sick. The Canadian
Security Intelligence Service has become a monster that no one
can control, not even Parliamentarians, and this is totally
unacceptable in 1994.
(1145)
That is why only a royal commission of inquiry can get to the
bottom of this issue. Taxpayers would then get satisfactory
answers to questions they have been asking ever since the
creation of CSIS in 1984.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Madam Speaker, I did indeed listen carefully to the
comments made by my hon. colleague from the Opposition.
First, the hon. member referred to events that occurred in 1970,
which I think is a rather sensitive period, but we are not here to
go through that again, since this was already covered by the
McDonald Commission, which led to the creation of SIRC and
CSIS.
6310
Moreover, I find rather strange that when abuses are
discussed, those which happened in the 1950s are never
mentioned. The hon. member did not mention the Padlock Act
passed by the Union Nationale. They went after the Asbestos
workers in 1949. They went after my constituents in
Murdochville. I find it passing strange that nothing is said about
abuses done either at the federal level or especially at the
provincial level.
I am not here to criticize the province or the country, but I
would like nevertheless to indicate to the hon. member that
SIRC was created to ensure the presence of a civilian body
operating at arms length both from CSIS and the government
itself. We are looking forward to the report SIRC should present
in the next few weeks, and I am sure it will be to everyone's
satisfaction, or at least I hope so. We will see what we will be
able to discuss here with the Opposition members.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon.
member did not ask a direct question but made some
questionable allegations, which is even worse.
He said that I referred to the events of 1970. Yes, I did. I do not
think that we have to go back to 1950 to dig up provincial
problems, when the RCMP is exclusively under federal
jurisdiction. We are here to prevent more overlapping, to see
that the present Constitution and set-up are respected. Later on,
when Quebec has decided on its future, it will be different story.
I must say to the hon. member that if we consider what
happened in the 1970s and the information released by the CBC
on CSIS's investigation of some members of the Jewish
Congress in Toronto, the possibility that CSIS financed or
helped found the Heritage Front, the employment of Bristow, a
member of Heritage Front, as a bodyguard of the leader of a
recognized party, I think that we can make comparisons between
1970 and 1994. There are still reasons today to demand a royal
commission of inquiry, just as there were when the McDonald
Commission started its hearings in 1977. All we want is to get
answers to the questions we have been asking since that time.
We never got any answers.
Just by looking at the Harlequin reports published once a year
by the SIRC for the past two or three years, it is obvious that we
will not be able to get answers even though we, as
parliamentarians, were democratically elected by the people of
Canada to oversee and monitor public expenditures. These little
documents published by the SIRC from time to time will not
shed much light on these activities. We need a royal commission
of inquiry and I think we have enough allegations to warrant the
setting up of such a commission. If there is nothing serious in
these allegations, why is the Inspector General of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service looking into the matter? Why is
the SIRC looking into the matter and why were its people so
nervous when they approved before the Sub-Committee on
National Security of which I am a member?
(1150)
Why is it that parliamentarians felt the need to create this
Sub-Committee on National Security to study these
allegations? Because they had good grounds for doing so. But,
despite all that, we will not get any answers unless we set up a
royal commission of inquiry to look into the matter. Then our
questions would be answered.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the
Bloc why he is not prepared to give SIRC an opportunity to
prove it is incompetent of coming up with a report that is
satisfactory to us.
The hon. member and probably most other members in the
House know how I feel about the make-up of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee. It is not a make-up of which I
approve. It is not a process of which I approve. However I feel
we should allow it to do its job and then judge whether or not the
report is adequate and fulfils the needs of the Canadian public to
know the facts.
Why is the hon. member unprepared and unwilling to let SIRC
complete the report, then sit in judgment and ask for a further
commission to be established because the committee has not
done its job rather than accusing it of not doing its job when it is
not given the chance to do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to
answer that question from my hon. colleague whom I admire and
for whom I have a liking since we once worked together. There is
something else I admire about her, her naivety.
When the SIRC came before the Sub-Committee on National
Security, we could see that we would not get answers to our
questions. To questions as simple as: ``On what date did Mr.
So-and-So contact Mr. Such-and-Such?'' the Service
member's answer was: ``I cannot answer you, Mr.
Bellehumeur''.
When I asked other questions on facts not related to national
security, I was told: ``We cannot answer you, Mr. Bellehumeur.
We will take note of that question and we will get an answer for
you, but it will come from the Solicitor General of Canada, not
from us''.
What will we get from the SIRC? What answers will we get to
our questions? Answers censored by the Solicitor General of
Canada? That does not satisfy me. Nor does it satisfy the
taxpayers I represent. We really need a royal commission of
inquiry, where the principals will come face to face with us and
will be compelled to give the commissioners answers to the
questions we asked and to which we did not get answers from the
SIRC.
6311
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Madam Speaker, does the hon. member realize that
the review committee can enter any office or public institution
and visit all the premises, examine every document, voucher,
or file in that office or institution? I get the impression the hon.
member did not quite understand when the Solicitor General
said the review committee has the same powers as a royal
commission of inquiry.
I do not see any purpose in having a royal commission. Since
members opposite always complain about duplication, why
should we have a royal commission? We already have a review
committee, the SIRC. We all know that SIRC was created
precisely to investigate allegations such as those made recently.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I thought that, after one
year in Parliament, the hon. member would have lost some of the
illusions he still seems to harbour.
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I object
to that personal remark. I asked a question and I want to get
an answer. Let us leave character out of this.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. The hon. member
knows that no reference to another member's character should
be made in this House.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I apologize if I insulted
the hon. member, but nevertheless, that is what I think.
(1155)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I believe that the hon.
member knows what he is saying, since his words are very well
chosen. I ask him to withdraw them.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Which ones? He made two objections.
Does he want me to withdraw the expression ``I think'' or the
comments that I made on him?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I consider that the
member has withdrawn his words.
Mr. Gagnon: You know, Madam Speaker, the Opposition
member is still a good devil. I rise today to speak on this motion.
Mr. Bellehumeur: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
believe that the member just attacked me by saying that I am a
devil, whether a good or a bad one, but still a devil. I would ask
the member to withdraw his words.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the parliamentary
secretary withdraw his words?
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I did not use them
pejoratively.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I accept the hon. member's apologies.
Mr. Gagnon: As I was saying, I rise today to speak on this
motion which, as the solicitor general mentioned, involves a
certain number of problems and misunderstandings. It
seems essential to me that the members of this House
understand and fully appreciate the complex and sensitively
ordered system of checks and balances that is part of our
national system of security intelligence.
Also, that system is designed to ensure a balance between the
protection of individual freedoms and the need to protect the
Canadian public against threats to the security of their country.
Most people will agree that we must protect Canada against
threats to its security and that this protection requires a security
intelligence agency.
There is no doubt in my mind that Canada needs a security
intelligence service, as all other industrialized countries do. Let
us take for example the threat that terrorism involves. Canadian
democracy is based on a climate of freedom and political
objectives are met through open discussions, debates or other
legitimate activities toward lawful advocacy.
However, that climate, as well as public safety, is jeopardized
when an individual or a group is trying to meet those political
goals through violence or threat of violence.
In the 1980s, terrorism became a major concern for safety and
the government gave CSIS the mandate to gather, on a priority
basis, security information on terrorism. Our first line of
defence must be information.
The other thing which is threatening us is espionage. Since the
emergence of nation-states, espionage has become part of
everyday life. Every nation is striving to improve its position
within the international community. However, we have to admit
that even if the political scene is better world-wide, some
nations still resort to deceptive or clandestine activities for the
purpose of enhancing their international position.
Canada must protect itself against such threats, whether they
take the form of traditional espionage or of any other means of
illegally obtaining the technological know-how of this country.
(1200)
Canada must also be able to identify and to thwart steps taken
by foreign countries or agents seeking to secretly influence or
harass our ethnic communities. Again, we must protect those
who have elected to settle in Canada and make it their new
homeland.
Here also, the gathering of good intelligence is at the very
heart of our first line of defence. I am convinced that the CSIS
Act is an efficient piece of legislation, enforced according to the
wishes of Parliament set forth ten years ago. The CSIS Act
provides a legislative framework likely to ensure the delicate
balance between efficient national security and the respect of
6312
individual rights and freedoms. The Canadian Security
Intelligence Service Act defines the mandate of CSIS and gives
it the necessary powers to fulfill it.
It provides a unique operational framework for CSIS. It
defines the powers of the service and specifies its limits. These
take the form of various control mechanisms: political controls,
subject to ministerial accountability and responsibility; judicial
controls and external controls by the Security Intelligence
Review Committee, or SIRC.
The act also provides a mechanism allowing any person or
group of persons to complain about any aspect of CSIS
activities. Furthermore, the Security Offences Act, which was
passed at the same time as the CSIS Act, confirms the RCMP's
responsibility concerning security offences, as well as its
responsibility in preventing such offences.
These two acts provide a legislative framework flexible
enough to adapt efficiently to the circumstances of each case.
Furthermore it should be emphasized that the political and
judicial structure of these two acts is unique in the world. The
government used policy directives to guide their interpretation
and implementation.
The main stakeholders in the Canadian security intelligence
system made sure that the legislation was practical and efficient.
The service has developed and follows a strict and satisfactory
investigation procedure. Since 1984, the Inspector General and
the Security Intelligence Review Committee have played their
role in an orderly and strict manner.
The Solicitor General relies a great deal on their work,
especially on the reports of the Inspector General that enable
him to make sure that the service is conforming to legislation
and following departmental directives on orientations. The
review committee's annual report that the Solicitor General
tables in Parliament completes the annual cycle of public
accountability.
Finally, the RCMP and CSIS have established measures and
developed mechanisms for co-operation. This is how the
legislation works today. Solid legislation, detailed government
instructions and an efficient internal administration are the
elements which allow the service to fulfil the mandate it
received from Parliament ten years ago.
The government does not stop there. I wish to remind
everyone that this government is constantly trying to find means
to improve the quality of the service. As the minister
responsible for CSIS the Solicitor General must make sure that
in its daily operations the service maintains a fair balance
between national security requirements and the rights and
freedoms of Canadians. The minister does that by using his
authority to approve and to give directions and also by relying
on the reports of the Inspector General and the review
committee.
Therefore, his task is to exercise a ministerial control. He
answers for the CSIS to cabinet and to Parliament. Two main
processes allow the minister to fulfil that responsibility. The
first one is his approval or concurring authority.
(1205)
In keeping with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Act, the Solicitor General must personally approve all
investigation warrant requests, all agreements concluded
between CSIS and other organizations, departments, provinces
and foreign countries, and all requests for data collection in
Canada by CSIS on behalf of foreign countries.
Now, let us examine the other act, passed in 1994, the Security
Offences Act. This act confirms the RCMP's overriding
responsibility in investigating certain security offences.
Intelligence gathering, protection and enforcement are the three
pillars of our security system.
The RCMP and CSIS have complementary functions. Each
service assumes a distinct role within the wider framework of
our national security system. CSIS is responsible for gathering
intelligence concerning threats to security and giving warning
about such threats. The RCMP is responsible for investigating
into offences, either planned or committed and, above all, for
crime prevention.
In order to facilitate CSIS's task, the CSIS Act contains
detailed definitions of possible threats to the security of Canada.
This enables CSIS to rapidly adapt to circumstances in our
constantly evolving world and to ensuing threats, as was
Parliament's wish ten years ago. For example, the CSIS Act has
allowed this organization to adapt to political and economic
upheavals in the world during the last ten years.
Although areas of concern are not the same, we can still feel
very strongly that hostile intelligence services threaten our
national security. In matters of terrorism, new threats to the
security of Canada have evolved as a consequence of foreign
conflicts being unfortunately introduced into Canada. Terrorism
is a scourge that spares no nation on Earth. Unfortunately it does
not seem to be receding, quite the contrary.
Ever since its creation in 1984, CSIS has been able to evolve
considerably thanks to the flexibility provided by the act and to
ministerial directives. The act continues to give us the necessary
means to face any subversive action. Naturally, because of its
very nature, a security intelligence service must remain secret.
This is particularly necessary in some cases, when the right of
someone to privacy is to be protected.
6313
Secrecy is also required to protect certain operational
activities like staff distribution, modes of operation and sources
of information. Everybody recognizes that secrecy as an end
in itself does not serve anyone.
I have touched on the kind of security intelligence system that
Parliament wanted to meet the needs of democracy, and I have
touched on some of the real threats that make such a system a
necessity in a democracy.
I am only echoing the words of the Solicitor General when I
say that we do not need to set up a royal commission of inquiry,
because we already have in place systems like the SIRC, that
have the wide powers necessary to conduct an in-depth inquiry.
Therefore, before deciding on anything, let us wait until the
Security Intelligence Review Committee has completed its job
and submitted its report to the Solicitor General. This should be
done shortly. Once the report has been submitted, as
parliamentarians we will be able to take the necessary steps.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata):
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his
very enlightening speech. I also want to congratulate him on
making his remarks entirely in French, from beginning to end,
which is a first in this House for him.
If I understood the member correctly, the Solicitor General
rubber-stamps special mandates, and one must trust that
everything is in order since the agency publishes a new annual
report every year.
(1210)
I read the report made public in 1993. It is a ten-page
document, with each page only half full to make room for some
very interesting graphics. It is not with such a report, that would
hardly meet grade 12 standards, that we are going to reassure the
population regarding certain allegations.
The Bloc Quebecois has never questioned the need for such an
agency. I believe that any self-respecting nation ought to have
this kind of agency; there is no doubt about that. The point we
raised is that allegations were made and if the Solicitor General
approves everything, this means that he knew that someone was
spying on the Reform Party from within. This is intolerable.
That is why, in case of allegations, one must go beyond the
annual report. Do you know how difficult it is to get into CSIS?
It takes about one hour to get all the doors unlocked. If they see
you coming, they obviously have the time to put any file they do
not want you to see in false-bottom drawers. There is no
guarantee that an investigation can get all the facts. If something
is secret, top secret, or top, top, top secret, obviously you will
not find it lying on a table. It will be securely locked up in a file
drawer nobody has access to.
How can we guarantee that an investigation will get to the
bottom of things? That is what we are wondering. This is the
reason why we say that it is all nice and dandy to wait for the
report, but the allegations are too serious. We are just about to
enter very difficult times in Canada. We are no fools, but we
want to make sure that what happened in 1970 will not happen
again. We do not want to see history repeat itself. We want to go
through this difficult transition as adults and in accordance with
democratic principles, not with a top secret service which is
going to plant bombs whenever it pleases.
So I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General
how can he guarantee that we are protected from such an
occurrence?
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, first of all, the allegations
made before CIRC about CSIS will be examined. This is not
an annual report, but rather a report that will examine the
issues and the allegations that have been made against the
intelligence service by the opposition. I must conclude,
however, that there are members on this side of the House
who are on the sub-committee looking at allegations about
our security intelligence service.
I can also tell you that, in answer to the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, one of the things we have recognized,
particularly with respect to the CIRC and CSIS, is that it is
unacceptable that such a group be asked to spy on a legitimate
political party. I think that everyone in this House recognizes
that this is not the goal of this government and that if it has
already been done-I was not there then-but I can tell you this:
I know these are difficult times, but I am nevertheless happy to
hear that the hon. member recognizes the importance of having
an intelligence service with a mandate to ensure Canada's
integrity, particularly in light of the industrial and technological
espionage that we see nowadays.
I can assure the member that it is not the goal of the service to
spy on political groups.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, I would like to react to comments made by the
hon. member from the Bloc who said that she is afraid these
secrets are in hidden boxes, locked in drawers and cabinets. I
think the reality is that these secret documents are passed around
by staffers. They are taken home. They are left in open boxes in
basements. We should be concerned about the lack of security of
classified documents.
My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada is this. Is the hon. member aware of how
these documents are classified?
6314
(1215 )
The hon. member made a comment that he does not want
secrets for secret's sake. How are highly classified documents
labelled as such? Does the hon. member know?
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, actually I do not know and that
is the idea of the inquest being held by SIRC. It is to look into
these various allegations. The hon. member also brought
forward before the committee a number of questions. I am told
there are more than 130.
I am sure that we will have to answer many of those questions
and surely others put forward by the Bloc members as well as
members on this side. I can assure the hon. member that I hope
we will be able to answer a lot of them.
Again, it will be up to the Solicitor General to make sure that
the information made public will not undermine the national
security interests of Canada. I am convinced that a lot of these
questions will be answered to the satisfaction of the opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Madam Speaker, I would
have a question for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General. I listened carefully to his speech and I must
tell you that it sounded to me like he had a lot of good to say
about the previous administration. To listen to him, I wonder
why he did not run for the Conservative Party in the last
elections if everything was going so well.
Considering that we have a democratic system and that
nothing is more sacred than democracy in this country, in
Canada and Quebec, does he not agree that it would be
interesting from time to time to have a commission, whether
royal or not-I say royal commission because that is how they
are called in Canada-to have a high-level commission
investigate, especially when officials of the SIRC appearing
before a sub-committee refuse to answer certain questions?
They did not answer all the questions. Would it not be time to
have a commission investigate and shed light on this so that the
people of Canada know exactly what is happening?
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, unlike the hon. member's
leader and Leader of the Opposition, I never ran for the
Conservative Party. But I can you tell you this: for one thing,
let us allow let the process to run its course.
First of all, the SIRC was established specifically to answer
questions raised by the member opposite as well as by interest
groups. So, based on the facts or evidence submitted to us
concerning the allegations made against CSIS, I trust we will be
able to make an informed decision regarding this service. I think
we should let the organization do its job. I am convinced that the
hon. member opposite and our colleague from the Reform Party
will have ample opportunity to scrutinize the report in October.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Before resuming
debate, I would like to read a quote from Beauchesne's sixth
edition, citation 478. This morning a couple of times I hesitated
to interrupt speakers but citation 478 states:
The proceedings of a committee may not be referred to in debate before they
have been laid upon the Table.
I would just ask hon. members to be aware of this rule.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Madam Speaker,
I want to begin my speech with a brief historical overview. In
1946, with the RCMP's increased responsibilities for security,
the personnel assigned to security tasks as, for the first time,
separated organizationally from the Investigations Directorate
and grouped in the Special ``I'' Branch.
In 1956, the Special ``I'' Branch was made a directorate
within the RCMP, under the command of a deputy
commissioner.
(1220)
In 1969, the Royal Commission on Security recommended the
establishment of a civilian security agency. The government
rejected this recommendation but announced its intention to
give the Special ``I'' Branch a separate status and to increase its
civilian personnel.
Between 1971 and 1974, especially but not exclusively in
Quebec, the security service mounted a series of operations,
many of which were apparently illegal, in order to neutralize
radical and separatist groups.
On March 27, 1975, the federal Cabinet produced a directive
governing the security service's activites; this directive
remained secret until 1978.
In 1976, a year later, Corporal Samson was tried following an
incident unrelated to this affair, but revealed his participation in
Operation Bricole in 1972. This operation involved breaking
and entering and stealing files, especially on politics in Quebec.
Various events occurred over the years, but let us go to
November 29, 1984. The members of SIRC, the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, were appointed. The chairman
was Ronald Atkey, a former Conservative Cabinet minister, as if
by chance.
In February 1985, the federal government's budget estimates
showed that CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,
had a meagre budget of about $115 million; I say meagre
because today its budget exceeds $200 million. This still
represents, in the midst of an economic crisis, a considerable
amount.
6315
Despite this huge amount coming from the pockets of
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, Parliament only plays a minor
role in monitoring the review of CSIS activities. Even
reviewing the budget only skims the surface as the CSIS budget
amounts, in fact, to a single line in the 1994-95 Estimates. I
know from experience that when Mr. Elcock, a senior director
of CSIS, appeared before the justice committee I was on, we
asked him, to no avail, how these millions of dollars spent on
national security were used. We never at any time-the
evidence is all around us-received anything even remotely
resembling an answer. That is not really surprising since Mr.
Elcock has a reputation that probably always precede him.
In this regard, Richard Cléroux, a writer and former reporter
with the Toronto-based daily newspaper the Globe and Mail,
thinks that Mr. Elcock is very intelligent and plays political
hardball. He sees him more as a Jesuit than an Oblate and thinks
that he would make a formidable opponent of the independency
movement.
What is most important is not that he refuses to answer our
questions despite being accountable to taxpayers but that he
leads an organization that seems to be above government
control, that costs over $200 million a year and whose activities
we cannot find out anything about, let alone check. That an
organization with millions of dollars at its disposal is beyond
our control is rather disquieting. It is troubling for taxpayers and
from a national security standpoint. How far can we go in letting
people put our money to work and for what reasons?
Talking about CSIS, opinions vary, according to experts. One
of the questions we must ask ourselves is this: Could the
organizations responsible for our national security with so little
monitoring engage in illegal activities? It happened in the past.
Let us just say that by asking the question, we are begging the
answer to it.
(1225)
Money can do anything, really. But considering the economic
situation, our present state of affairs, and the demographics and
the geography of our vast country, could this really happen?
Well, yes, it could, but is it likely? Personally, I would say that
not only is it likely, it is very likely.
Mr. Jean-Paul Brodeur, a criminology professor at the
Université de Montréal, who specializes in intelligence
services, among other things, even mentions that the Americans
are sometimes taken for a ride, even though they have a much
tighter control system than we do, in the form of committees
with wide-ranging powers in both houses of Congress.
Who has forgotten the famous Oliver North, who was taking
orders from above and literally thumbed his nose at everything
else?
Mrs. Lorraine Lagacé, the former Quebec delegate in Ottawa,
under Mr. René Lévesque, has some thoughts on this matter. She
says that most English Canadians are not interested in looking at
legal mechanisms, that what really counts for them is
democracy, but that if they must choose between democratic
rules and a united Canada, they will always opt for a united
Canada.
That is precisely how they see this issue, so, no matter what
the RCMP or CSIS says, the mandate of secret services will
always be to save Canada before anything else.
CSIS employees, whom we pay more than $200 million per
year, are not accountable. These people only have to table some
kind of report before a pseudo-monitoring committee made up
of political appointees. In fact, that review committee must
phone CSIS before going to its offices to look into files, and they
do not have access to all files. This is what you call
transparency!
The public does have the right to know and we, elected
representatives, have the basic duty of providing the
information. What is happening with the more than $200 million
paid in taxes? CSIS is a monster that nobody can control, not
even the government. Consequently, you can imagine what is
happening! This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking for a royal
commission of inquiry.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I realize that the hon.
member stopped after ten minutes. Am I to understand that you
are sharing your allotted time with a colleague?
Mr. St-Laurent: Indeed, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Fine. Questions and
comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned again
that we have no way of monitoring CSIS activities and referred
to events dating back to 1970. We have been through this before.
Today, all we want to do is ensure that SIRC can report on the
allegations made either by the opposition or people whose rights
have supposedly been, shall we say, impinged upon by CSIS.
I wonder if the hon. member would acknowledge that we now
have in 1994 a service and a control committee which did not
exist earlier on. I understand that this monitoring committee is
made up of people tied to the previous government, but the hon.
member should recognize that, if a seat at SIRC becomes vacant,
we have the obligation to consult the opposition leaders.
(1230)
So, I would like to know if the hon. member recognizes the
existence of provisions in the act setting up SIRC which
stipulate that we need to consult the opposition before
appointing anyone to this committee?
6316
Mr. St-Laurent: Madam Speaker, of course, we must take
certain guidelines into account, and this is provided for in this
context.
However, the question raised here today is that we believe it is
particularly absurd to see the lack of control by the House of
Commons over an institution to which it pays so many millions
dollars every year and from which it really cannot get answers.
On the contrary, people are asked to answer questions simply.
They do not have to give exact details on individuals in
particular with specific dates and amounts; these things are not
asked, especially when we are in committee. We ask people to
tell us how it works and what happens internally. We talk about
different aspects which have something to do with the way our
tax dollars are spent.
We give $200 million dollars a year to CSIS, Madam Speaker,
but I cannot explain to my constituents how the money is spent. I
can only say to them that I do not have the slightest idea of how
CSIS spends this money. I know that it hires people, of course.
But what do they do exactly?
The people from across the way do not seem to be interested in
speaking about what happened before, but we must not forget
that it did happen. It is part of our history, and it must not be
forgotten. We must not be afraid of repeating that the taxpayers'
money was used for terrorist acts specially directed at some
Quebecers accused of separatist activities.
With this in mind, we are justified in asking this question: will
the taxpayers' money be used again for terrorist activities? This
is the question we are asking today. It is a monster gone out of
control.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Madam Speaker, it is false to claim that activities of
this kind take place in Canada. I believe that the hon. member
has the privilege of sitting here in the House of Commons, the
right to express his opinions and the privilege of sitting on the
Sub-Committee on National Security. He has the privilege of
asking questions about the performance of SIRC and the
estimates tabled in the House every year.
I think it is not a matter of money but of realizing that we have
the mechanisms to ensure our security. In fact, according to a
number of international experts, this mechanism does not exist
in any other country. You know, in France when you get off the
subway, you often see French policemen doing ID checks. That
is not the kind of society we have here in Canada. We have a free,
liberal and generous society with great respect for the freedom
of the individual.
It is not my purpose to defend our past performances, because
I was not there. I have to admit I was not around at the beginning
and the end of the sixties. But today, we have the mechanisms we
need to ensure there is no abuse of power with respect to
legitimate organizations, including political parties.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Before we continue this
debate, I wish to inform the hon. member that he may use the 30
seconds he has left.
Mr. St-Laurent: Madam Speaker, I will do that, but instead
of a lengthy reply, I just want to make a brief comment.
The hon. member opposite said that I had the privilege to do
this and the privilege to do that. I also have the right.
Mr. Gagnon: Of course.
Mr. St-Laurent: I have that right, because I was duly elected
by people who pay their taxes, whom I represent here in the
House. I am now exercising the right I was given by the
electorate.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague from Manicouagan for sharing ten minutes of
his speaking time with me. Allow me to add my voice to that of
my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and ask this House to blame the
government for refusing to set up a royal commission of inquiry
on illegal activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service.
(1235)
Let me remind you that CSIS was allotted a budget of about
$205 million for fiscal year 1994-95. From a strictly accounting
point of view, it is obvious that this House has not only the right
but indeed the duty to look into the activities of this agency.
But we are not here to talk about accounting today. This
debate is about the very activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service, nothing less.
I should point out that this agency was established out of
concern for transparency, to follow up on the recommendations
of the McDonald Commission, which had uncovered a
disgraceful set of unacceptable, if not downright illegal,
practices and actions by the RCMP's very own security service.
Although the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was
established with transparency in mind, there are nonetheless two
major problems with CSIS. First, it does not have to account to
Parliament for its budget, which it receives from Parliament.
What this means is that we, who represent the people we were
elected by, have no way of knowing how our tax money is spent.
That is absurd!
The second problem with the accountability of CSIS to this
Parliament relates to its intelligence gathering activities. Some
may quickly answer back that the annual report CSIS tables
every year is public and that a monitoring committee,
commonly know as SIRC, reviews all its activities.
Unfortunately, the reports tabled in this House in that respect are
rather laconic, they do not say much. They are the epitome of the
lack of transparency.
6317
That is why the Bloc Quebecois considers that a royal
commission of inquiry would give the people of Canada and
Quebec a chance to determine whether their tax money is used
properly and, more importantly, to check if CSIS has infiltrated
and is trying to destabilize one or several political parties or
other legitimate organizations. This is a serious matter. After
all, an agency above suspicion, namely the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, did engage in such activities in the past.
We are justified in fearing that history will repeat itself. The
Toronto Star recently uncovered a confidential note from an
assistant to former Conservative Solicitor General Doug Lewis.
According to this note, CSIS used an informant to obtain
information on a report on the CBC television program ``The
Fifth Estate''.
CSIS used and paid an informant by the name of Grant
Bristow, who is one of the founders of Heritage Front, an
extreme right-wing group dedicated to the unacceptable
promotion of white supremacy. It has even been maintained that
this individual tried to spy on the Canadian Jewish Congress.
Worse yet, it was revealed that this mole, namely Mr. Bristow,
found himself in the entourage of the Reform Party leader at
least twice as a security guard.
Mr. Parrot, the president of the Canadian Union of Postal
Workers, believes that CSIS also spied on his union.
Tell me, is CSIS under control or has it lost its marbles? Is this
a simple mishap or, on the contrary, just the tip of the iceberg?
(1240)
There is no way to know. In parliamentary committee,
officials clearly avoided and even refused to answer the
legitimate questions asked by members of this House. The
Liberal government tells us that the Security Intelligence
Review Committee, SIRC for short, is checking out these
allegations and will report to the Solicitor General within a
month.
That is not good enough. The people must know that on
September 13, when the Review Committee itself appeared
before the House Standing Sub-Committee on National
Security, committee members were bold enough to tell members
that they could not reveal their findings and that only the
Solicitor General could decide what should be made public. We
are not naive.
The report or rather what will be left of it will obviously not
tell us the whole truth. What about transparency, Madam
Speaker? The Bloc Quebecois is not alone in demanding a public
inquiry. Several very respectable organizations have called for a
royal commission of inquiry. If I may, I would like to quote from
an article published on September 10 in the Quebec City
newspaper Le Soleil: ``More and more groups are calling for an
independent investigation into the allegations against CSIS. The
Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour
Congress, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Simon
Wisenthal Centre all argue that the government should set up a
mini-commission based on the McDonald Commission which
investigated the former RCMP security service in the 1970s. To
ensure public confidence, someone should take a fresh look at
this whole affair, said Mr. Borovoy, head of the Civil Liberties
Association''.
The Government of Canada also finances other intelligence
agencies. In addition to CSIS, with its $205-million budget,
there is the RCMP's Criminal Intelligence Directorate, with a
budget of around $5 million, the Security and Intelligence
Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs, with a budget of
around $10 million, and finally the top secret Communications
Security Establishment of National Defence.
This famous establishment, the CSE, is governed by no law
specifying its mandate or its powers, nor is it subject to any
control mechanism. It is not even required to answer to
Parliament. In spite of that, the CSE spends between $200 and
$300 million in the greatest secrecy, without having to account
for it, because it is so secret that it does not even exist in
legislation. According to our information, this establishment
has two mandates: the first is called INFOSEC, whereby the
CSE gives the government technical advice, reports and
assistance on the security of the telecommunications of federal
departments. The second is code-named SIGINT; under this
heading, information is collected on the activities, intentions
and capabilities of foreign governments and on individuals and
companies in various fields.
We are not being paranoid, but when we see an organization
like CSIS, which is covered by legislation and faces serious
charges of infiltrating a political party and spying on other
legitimate organizations, I am very inclined to suspect that other
secret services which are not governed by legislation can do
even more and much worse.
As we just saw, these intelligence agencies have a combined
budget of half a billion dollars and members of this House are
unable to tell taxpayers if this money is spent in the best interest
of the public and, most important, in accordance with the laws of
the land.
Given this flagrant lack of openness, this flagrant lack of
accountability to parliamentarians and citizens, this flagrant
lack of control over the activities of Canadian intelligence
agencies, especially CSIS, it is imperative to review the process
by which these agencies report to Parliament, to review the CSIS
Act, to review the process of appointing members to the Review
Committee, and in so doing, members of this Parliament can
ensure that the interests and rights and fundamental freedoms of
the people of Canada and of Quebec are respected.
6318
(1245)
It would have been very simple to let members be informed
openly, but since they are denied access to the truth, only one
solution remains: the people must now be informed through a
royal commission of inquiry on CSIS.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Madam Speaker, the Security Intelligence Review
Committee was set up ten years ago precisely to ensure greater
transparency regarding the activities of CSIS. Let us not forget,
and I hope the hon. member will agree, that we have a duty to
protect industrial interests in Canada.
All kinds of rumours are circulating in the Greater Montreal
to the effect that some Quebec industries are the target of foreign
interests or industrial espionage. I think the media reported
several cases of Canadian companies losing contracts or being
robbed of some technology by a foreign government. In my
opinion, the primary objective is to protect the technological
advances of our industries, including the aerospace and
pharmaceutical industries, which are very important in Quebec
and also elsewhere in Canada.
Does the hon. member recognize that we must protect our
interests against increasing and disturbing competition from
certain countries?
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is full of
good intentions. I notice that he is the only one on the Liberal
side to defend that cause. In fact, some other Liberal members
were making very different statements not that long ago.
On March 19, 1992, when he was in opposition, the Liberal
member for Scarborough West, said this regarding this issue:
``We call upon CSIS and the minister to ensure, now that they
can crawl, that future annual statements and reports contain
more information, as promised by the minister himself, so that
Canadians can have an informed public debate, be aware of the
national security issues which face our nation, consider the
major national security issues which face our country from year
to year and how we are to handle them''. The hon. member for
Scarborough West was right on then, but the fact is that two
years later Canadians, and even MPs in this House, still do not
have the information requested.
Where are the Liberal members who were then asking for
what we are asking for today? They keep silent. There is only
one spokesperson for the Liberals and he has not been here long
enough to realize that the problem has already persisted for too
long and should have been resolved by now.
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon.
member that, as the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I will always be first
in line to protect individual freedoms. I will never accept the
fact that legitimate organizations and political parties are
being spied upon. I think that my party, and the government
I have the privilege to be part of, have always sought first
and foremost to protect individual liberties.
The hon. member referred to our committee. There is a
sub-committee, made up of Liberals, Reform members and
representatives of the Bloc Quebecois, which has been set up to
undertake a review parallel to that of SIRC on allegations made
against our security intelligence services. I believe we have
shown some openness. I am very proud to see that even members
on this side of the House are asking relevant questions that need
to be answered. SIRC was created precisely to investigate
allegations that can, at times, be legitimately made by the
opposition or members on this side of the House.
(1250)
Let me reassure the hon. member by saying that we follow our
proud tradition and always try to protect the underprivileged in
Canada, who are unfortunately going through some tough times.
I am proud to be part of this government and of a party which is
concerned about the less-privileged in Canada.
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my
colleague opposite say that they want to shed some light on
actions by CSIS.
Let me remind the House that, on April 1, 1993, the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River pointed out that
Parliament's five-year review involved 117 recommendations
and said: ``While it certainly was not our belief that the
government would immediately adopt all 117
recommendations, all of us who participated in the committee
were disappointed that at the end of the day only one or two
recommendations were actually formally adopted''.
Mr. Asselin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When
the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
referred to this side of the House when speaking about the
government, I noticed that only a few members were interested.
I call for a quorum count.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will ask the Clerk to
count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I see a quorum.
Resuming debate.
[English]
Mr. Duncan: Madam Speaker, is not a Reform member the
next speaker?
6319
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Barnes): My list shows the
member for Durham. We have just heard from one side and we
are alternating government and opposition and we now have the
government speaker.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Madam Speaker, a clever
motion has been put to the House that evokes a memory of
transgressions from a bygone day. If approved, it would not
serve the interest of Canadians or the lawful process that
legislators designed to ensure their national security.
There are a large number of Canadians who are unclear about
the role of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. These are
serious people. If they are confused it is because they have been
brought up on the myths about what an intelligence organization
does.
I want to dispel some of these myths. Today I want to talk
about what CSIS does and what it does not do.
(1255 )
There is the issue of law, of accountability and of democracy.
The point I want to make is that CSIS exists because of those
things, not despite them.
Nearly 50 years ago Canadians discovered, courtesy of Igor
Gouzenko, that the Soviet Union was operating an espionage
network here. The RCMP was asked to counter it and for
decades it did. It became clear over time that police work and
intelligence work were different. Police work involved
enforcing the law, catching criminals and prosecuting them.
Intelligence work involved warning governments and protecting
people from acts by foreigners or by Canadians who threaten the
security of our country.
The role of warner is very different from the role of enforcer.
By its nature good warning requires good information. There are
many ways to get information and some of them can conflict
with civil liberties and the law. For that reason, among others,
the Mackenzie commission of the late 1960s followed by the
McDonald commission in the late 1970s both recommended that
Canada's intelligence service be civilian in nature and that it be
governed by a strict regime of law and accountability of review.
Simply put, CSIS exists because the government found that
the rights of Canadians had not been adequately protected. In
other words, the purpose of CSIS is to protect rights, to work
within the law to be accountable to the elected Government of
Canada.
There is probably no intelligence organization in the world
that functions with a law that is so strict and comprehensive and
as clear. The legislation governing some intelligence
organizations elsewhere is often a few general paragraphs in
length. Sometimes legislation does not even exist. The CSIS act
is 29 pages long. Nine of those pages are devoted to outlining
how what CSIS does is to be monitored, reviewed and approved
by others outside. No other part of the federal bureaucracy is
subject to such strict rules.
CSIS is under direct ministerial control and direction
responsible to cabinet and responsible to Parliament. When
CSIS engages in surveillance activities that are intrusive, such
as electronic techniques, the director has to be personally
satisfied in each case that the use of such techniques is
necessary, that all other avenues have been exhausted and that
the use of that technology is both lawful and within the mandate
of the service. If it is not it does not happen. Even if the director
thinks an action is justified, that is not good enough. The CSIS
act requires him to secure the approval of the minister, the
Solicitor General. If he does not approve, it does not happen. If
he does, it does not end there. The case must be put to a judge on
the Federal Court of Canada. There are no exceptions.
In addition, the law establishes two review agencies. One
agency is internal with an independent auditor called the
inspector general, with his own staff to report to the minister
directly. He has complete access to literally everything that the
service does.
The second review agency is external. We know it as the
Security Intelligence Review Committee or, as some have
mentioned, SIRC. It is independent both of CSIS and of
government. SIRC also has its own staff. It has access to
absolutely everything. It reports to Parliament annually. Its role,
as it has described it, is to ensure that CSIS does things right and
does the right things.
When CSIS was first created, SIRC found fault with some of
what was done. It still does, but it stated in its 1991-92 report
much has changed: ``In the early years of this committee's
mandate CSIS acted to a great extent as if it were simply a
continuation of the RCMP security service. Despite public
assertions to the contrary, SIRC felt that most CSIS targets,
policies and procedures were virtually unchanged from those of
a security service and that the CSIS preferred source of recruits
was still the RCMP. It took over three years for this state of
affairs to change significantly. CSIS is now virtually a new
organization, hardly recognizable any more as the direct
descendant of the security service of the RCMP. The number and
type of CSIS targets, the rigorous justification required before
anyone or any group is designated as a target, the lucidity, logic
and balance of warrant affidavits submitted to the Federal Court,
and the tone and content of reports by intelligence officers on
target files have all changed significantly for the better. We still
have criticisms to make, but our criticisms are no longer based
upon strong and fundamental disagreement with the CSIS view
of the world''.
(1300)
CSIS is a better organization because of that review process,
but the mechanism of review and reporting have extended well
beyond the work of that committee.
6320
In 1987 Gordon Osbaldeston who had been clerk of the Privy
Council was asked to look at CSIS. He recommended changes
to the services top level organization, a new approach to
training, development, and an improved infrastructure for
CSIS. Those changes were made.
In 1989 Parliament reviewed the CSIS act, five years after it
was created, and found that an organization to counter terrorism
and espionage and to provide intelligence to the government was
still needed in Canada.
In 1991 the then government responded to that parliamentary
review. The best summary of its conclusions in terms of the
service and the act of Parliament that governs it is provided by
the title of the report, ``On Course''.
The third review since 1984 was done in the winter of
1992-93. The Solicitor General asked the director at that time to
conduct a full review of the service and how it should change to
take account of the end of the cold war and present and future
threats to Canadian security. Today's service reflects the
changed reality.
CSIS was created to enhance accountability, not evade it.
CSIS was created to observe the rights and liberties of all
Canadians. The law that governs CSIS is clear. The review that
governs CSIS is comprehensive. The accountability of CSIS to
the government is complete and the process of change and
reform has been constant.
CSIS reflects our cultural diversity and many more women
are part of the operation. Two out of three employees have been
hired since 1984. The service has expanded dramatically its
capacity for research and analysis including in depth long term
studies of global security problems of relevance to Canada.
Hundreds of graduates in business administration, in history,
in economics and in social sciences have been brought in. These
people are not spies as some would prefer to believe. Many of
them are analysts. Most are not sitting in some attic with a wire
in their ear; they are at a desk reading. Much of what they
analyse is open source material or information received from
friends and allies.
The CIA estimates that 55 per cent of its finished intelligence
product comes from open sources, in some areas 80 per cent.
That makes two points. First, the other 20 per cent is also
crucial. It is the stuff the guys they are trying to understand do
not want them to know. It is what makes intelligence work
differently and hopefully sometimes better than work produced
internally from open sources. Second, the value added more
often than not comes from brains, not bugging.
CSIS is not in the business of collecting information for
collection sake. It is in the business of taking information,
analysing it, integrating it, understanding it and then passing it
on to the government. What CSIS does would be of no use if it
kept the information for itself. It does not. Its role is to pass it
on, to inform the government, to warn it and to reassure it. So
the people are different and the focus is changing partly because
old threats have disappeared and partly because new threats
have emerged.
(1305)
Security and intelligence was not the invention of the cold
war. In Canada that function has been performed since the
mid-nineteenth century when Sir John A. Macdonald asked the
western frontier constabulary to patrol the borders of Upper
Canada and to report on American Civil War activities that
might affect Canada's security. The intelligence function was
performed and continued until the cold war commenced. The
beginning of the cold war was not the beginning of the need for
intelligence, and the end of the cold war does not mean the end
of that is near. Indeed some challenges have been made worse by
the collapse of the Berlin wall.
There are two types of threats that CSIS is responsible for
meeting. The first is public safety. The second is national
security. I will deal with public safety first. Simply put, public
safety involves protecting Canadians against violence. Violence
can come from abroad through terrorism. Violence can be
fostered here through extremism or the support of terrorism
elsewhere. Warning of that potential violence and its prevention
is called counterterrorism. That was not a worry for Canada for
most of the forties, fifties and sixties, but with the explosion of
terrorist groups and the incidents of the seventies it became a
serious concern.
It became clear that Canada was not immune with the 1982
assassination of a Turkish diplomat in Ottawa. So too the
takeover of the Turkish embassy in 1985 and the shocking
tragedy that same year with Air India in which 329 Canadians
died. CSIS shifted its responses and its resources to match the
new threat.
In 1984 when CSIS was created only 20 per cent of its
resources were devoted to counterterrorism and 80 per cent was
devoted to counterintelligence. By 1992 the picture was
dramatically different: a full 56 per cent of the operational
resources were devoted by then to counterterrorism.
Public safety or the protection of Canadian lives is the number
one priority. It is also the number one difficulty. The sources of
terrorism geographically are diverse. Groups come and groups
go. The inventions, activities, movements and targets of
individuals and governments are almost impossible to predict.
Their methods are by definition extreme. Their reach is global
and the consequences of failure are severe.
The challenge of Canada's security service is to ensure this
country is not the place where people are killed. That is not the
only challenge. There are four others. We do not want to be the
country where terrorism is planned. We do not want to be the
country in which money for terrorism is raised. We do not want
to be the country where the material to commit the act is bought.
6321
We do not want to be the place where the terrorists hide after the
deed is done.
In a sense dealing with the cold war was much easier. It was
fairly obvious what countries the spies came from. Opposing
intelligence specialists were extremely familiar with each
other's habits. There was almost a code of conduct. It was all
somewhat predictable, almost choreographed. That
predictability, that order, is not there with terrorism.
The terrorist threat is not diminishing. The technology of
terrorism is becoming more accessible, more convenient. The
sources of terrorism remain strong: nationalism, religious and
political extremism and state sponsored terrorism. There is a
correlation between the proliferation of terrorism and the
proliferation of regional conflict. Regional conflict continues.
There is also a correlation between ethnic unrest and hatred and
the proliferation of terrorism.
Looking at Asia, the former Soviet Union, eastern Europe,
Africa and even Northern Ireland, it is clear that unrest will
continue. Unfortunately Canadians will always be vulnerable.
Our borders are open and long. We are a wealthy industrial
society, a good target for extremists, a good place to secure
equipment, technology and funds. Links of family, emotion,
ideology and culture exist among millions of Canadians and
societies abroad. When conflicts grip those countries the echoes
can be felt here.
(1310)
The concerns of Canada's security intelligence service are
several: first, to prevent the spread of homeland conflicts to
Canada; second, to prevent the exploitation of immigrant
countries for fund raising to support those conflicts; and, third,
to prevent terrorism or support for terrorism that originates here
in relation to conflicts abroad.
The job of CSIS is early warning. It passes that information on
to the government. Each year hundreds of threat assessments are
prepared for the government by CSIS. The vast majority of them
dealt with terrorism. Much of what it does involves dampening
concerns rather than increasing them.
Let me now turn to the second major priority of CSIS, national
security. Simply put, this is about spying. Its job is to counter
that. That is why it is called counterintelligence. The focus is on
the activities of the organization that are the creatures of foreign
governments.
CSIS is concerned about countries that are one or more of the
following: potential enemies equipped with weapons of mass
destruction capable of striking Canada; countries that seek to
develop such weapons through threat and theft of technology;
countries that violate our sovereignty by meddling in our ethnic
communities; countries that try to exercise repressive control
over their citizens in Canada who are here on visitor exchanges;
and countries that seek to prejudice our economic security by
covertly gaining access to our leading edge technologies.
Throughout the cold war much of CSIS activity was devoted
to countering those activities, but that was before the Berlin wall
fell. What about the new world order? Unfortunately some of the
new world order is not new. Arms control agreements have been
negotiated and are substantially reducing the nuclear threat that
is still there.
Other countries continue to conduct espionage operations
here because the reasons for spying remain strong. Communists
did not invent spying; the desire for national advantage did.
Spying is a cheap way to acquire weapons technology whether
conventional or weapons of mass destruction.
The proliferation problem is getting worse, not better. We
have much of that technology here. It is at our nuclear, chemical
and pharmaceutical industries; in our electronic sector; and in
our machine tool capacities. As long as we are an open and
wealthy country with a leading economy, countries will come
here to spy and not simply for weapons. Developing countries
eager to catch up with the rest of world find espionage a highly
efficient way to modernize their economies. Former communist
countries may begin to resort to intelligence gathering for the
same reason. Everyone is after the competitive edge.
In conclusion, the motion admonishes the government for not
having set up a royal commission. I have already mentioned the
Security Intelligence Review Committee. In addition we have
established a parliamentary committee to further examine
specific aspects of CSIS.
This is not to detract from what may well have been useful
exercises, but I have here summaries of various costs of royal
commissions: aboriginal peoples, $13 million over nine months;
national passenger transportation, $23 million over three
months; Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, $23 million over
eight months; and reproductive technologies, $25 million over
three years. The list goes on.
Members of the Bloc have accused the government of creating
deficits on the backs of Quebecers. Here is a clear case of the
Bloc proposing the wasting of taxpayers' money on more
studies that benefit no one. More interesting is the fact that the
Bloc members, through their own representation on
parliamentary committees, are saying they are so inept to carry
out investigative powers the electorate has bestowed on them
that we have to pay outside experts to do their jobs.
6322
(1315 )
I do not think the taxpayers of Canada and especially those in
Quebec will be pleased to learn of that. This motion is an insult
to all people of Canada who are so concerned about controlling
government spending and getting our economic house in order.
[Translation]
M. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, I listened
carefully to the excellent speech on CSIS made by my hon.
colleague from Durham. It is no doubt necessary, in a modern
state, to take special measures in order to ascertain that
activities related to espionage, foreign interference and
revolutionary subversion are not carried out within a state's
territory. I think the member has explained very clearly why
there is a need for an organization to monitor these kinds of
activities. However, the opposition motion before us today deals
with a somewhat different subject.
I am a little sensitive to these questions because my name was
on the list of members of the Parti Quebecois that was stolen by
members of the RCMP's security service in the 1970s. When I
had the honour of being elected by the people of Jonquière to
represent them in the House of Commons, some of my friends
warned me, because I am a known sovereignist, a separatist as
many of our colleagues opposite like to say. I was a separatist in
the 1960s, and it looks like I am still a separatist in the 1990s.
Mr. Milliken: Yes, and next week you will be a federalist.
Mr. Caron: You may rest assured, my dear colleague from
Kingston and the Islands, that I will be a sovereignist for the
referendum.
When my friends saw that I was going to Ottawa as a member
of Parliament, they told me that I would be under surveillance by
the RCMP. I told them that I was not particularly worried
because we are in a state governed by the rule of law and I did
not think such a threat was real.
When I look at the issue before us today, I realize that CSIS
seems to have taken questionable measures. But I am not
supposed to worry because we have a review committee. I do not
want to know what is going on in CSIS, but I want to rest assured
that it is well supervised and monitored. However, present
members of the review committee have been appointed by the
previous government, and parties then represented in this House
had their say in those appointments. There are three
Conservatives, on Liberal and one New Democrat sitting on this
committee. I imagine they are all good federalists, and people
with a certain vision of Canada.
I do not trust those members. Sad to say, I do not trust them to
see to it that my rights as a Canadian and a Quebecer are
respected by CSIS. I am not sure they will do it. The Reform
Party was infiltrated by CSIS, and I am not sure the same thing
did not happen with the Bloc Quebecois.
Those issues are important. People are sceptical and the
present review committee cannot set their minds at peace. Does
my hon. colleague think it would be important, for the sake of
democracy, to have a royal commission of inquiry even if there
are costs involved? I think that in view of the present
membership of the review committee, we should spend
whatever money is needed. Would the hon. member for Durham
agree that a royal commission should go to the bottom of those
allegations made in the media about the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service?
(1320)
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, the essence of the hon.
member's question is whether CSIS is accountable. I went
through the process and CSIS seems to be just as accountable as
every other government department through Parliament. That is
a fundamental of our democratic system.
It is a ludicrous assumption to me if we are saying that a royal
commission is needed every time something has to be
investigated, whether it has to do with CSIS, the Department of
Industry or anything else. What would be the purpose of
Parliament if we resorted to a royal commission every time a
problem arose? We have made too much use of royal
commissions and studies. The Library of Parliament is full of
them, many of which are just collecting dust. What we are
saying is that to move away from that process is a total disregard
of our parliamentary traditions.
More important is the cost. Clearly, the cost would be
justifiable if there was an invasion of civil liberties, but the
reality is that we have the functions here. There are all kinds of
systems which scrutinize CSIS. Why spend the extra money?
With the deficit running at billions of dollars it seems totally
ludicrous that we would even think about a royal commission on
something that already has tremendous investigative
advantages.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Madam Speaker, I
would like the hon. member to clarify a couple of points in
relation to the actual function of CSIS. I thank him for the
overview.
It is my understanding from his presentation that CSIS was
actually born from the RCMP out of a need to counteract
Russian spying at that time. Since the cold war has ended and the
Berlin wall has dropped the need which originally called for the
start up of CSIS is gone.
When the cold war existed 80 per cent of CSIS activity was in
counterintelligence which falls under the national security point
of the two points outlined. Considering there is now no cold war
tends to imply that the public safety component of CSIS should
probably go back to the RCMP. It seems to be an early warning
system and once it is identified is referred to the appropriate
6323
sources to carry out in any event. Under national security I
believe the counterintelligence involvement is now 56 per cent.
I am wondering if the role of CSIS is becoming unnecessary.
Maybe we should be looking at some other component.
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, the essence of the hon.
member's question is whether it go back to the RCMP. The hon.
member wonders why the RCMP cannot carry out those
functions.
My dissertation tried to point out the significant difference
between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. It appears
the birth of CSIS and indeed other intelligence gathering
organizations like the CIA were predicated on the assumption
that they had a unique role.
The second part of the hon. member's question was whether
there is a need for that today. It does not take much reading of
our local newspapers to see that terrorism still exists around the
world. We have been treated to the terrors of Northern Ireland,
Bosnia-Hercegovina and other areas. These do have
attachments to Canada; people who live here have relatives in
those countries and so forth.
The answer is yes, it appears there is a need. In fact due to the
globalization and technology there may well be a greater need
today than there ever was before.
(1325 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from
Crowfoot.
It is a pleasure to rise today to contribute to the debate on the
security of our country. I am aware that by its very nature and its
inception in 1984, CSIS and much of its work must be kept
secret. The lives of individuals involved in CSIS work, contacts
and ultimately all Canadians would be at risk if the wrong
information got into the wrong hands. However this does not and
should not preclude parliamentarians on behalf of all Canadians
from discussing this secret agency, its work, mandate, activities,
and the manner in which we review the scope of activity, namely
through the Security Intelligence Review Committee otherwise
known as SIRC.
The work of CSIS in protecting the interests and security of
Canadians is not in question. Canada being such an open society
must be as vigilant as ever to the threat of subversive action. We
must be conscious and sensitive to Canada becoming a proxy
battlefield between immigrant groups who want to continue
their hostilities on our soil. Remembering that Canada has the
highest rate of immigration in the western world and therefore
has extra exposure in that regard, we must be vigilant.
While it is important to acknowledge these potential threats
and reaffirm our support for CSIS, it does not mean that CSIS is
ultra vires or some untouchable CIA type derivative.
Accountability still remains the hallmark of the nature of this
country, its public servants, politicians and those on the public
payroll.
Canada is one of the few western democracies to give its
security service an explicit statutory charter. It provides a
defined mandate for the operations of the agency. It interposes a
system of judicially defined authorized warrants in the agency's
use of intrusive investigation techniques. It establishes
monitoring and review bodies. These purport to ensure that the
agency does not indeed act outside the limits of its mandate.
Therefore the question is: Is it doing so? It became obvious
during the four years of existence of the McDonald commission
in the late 1970s that illegalities and improprieties were rampant
in the security service branch of the RCMP. The principal
recommendations of that report called for an entirely civilian
security agency. This agency was to be politically accountable
and subject to strict review. The report concluded that law
enforcement and security work are incompatible.
Accordingly, Bill C-157 which was introduced in May 1983
was put into effect in order to form this new security agency.
However, it died on the order paper after much debate,
committee review and public criticism. During the next session
of the 32nd Parliament Bill C-9 was introduced and
incorporated virtually all of the proposed changes and
amendments as prescribed during the Bill C-157 debate. This
was proclaimed in August 1984.
The act assigns the management and control of CSIS to the
director, a cabinet appointee. The Solicitor General is given an
active supervisory role. Originally the bill had adopted a model
similar to Australian legislation which would not have given the
minister any operational role whatsoever. This was ostensibly to
ensure that CSIS could not be used for partisan purposes. The act
now provides that the minister has an override and must approve
all warrant applications. The act also establishes the office of
Inspector General and the Security Intelligence Review
Committee. The Inspector General is to monitor CSIS
operations and to report to the deputy Solicitor General and to
SIRC on the legality and propriety of these operations.
(1330)
SIRC is a committee composed of five Privy Councillors
appointed after consultation by the Prime Minister with
opposition leaders in the House of Commons. It is to conduct a
review of CSIS operations and to report to the minister and
Parliament on them. It also has a variety of investigative duties;
deals with complaints and acts as an appeal board with respect to
security assessments and security influenced decisions under
the Citizenship and Immigration Act.
6324
During its 10 years CSIS has had growing pains. The House
of Commons set up a special committee in 1989 to review the
CSIS act and the Security Offences Act. The committee had 117
recommendations. Its report called ``In Flux but not in Crisis''
generally concluded that the system was sound and any reform
should be based on the continuance and extension of already
established institutions.
The government's response set out its belief that legislative
changes in the CSIS act and the Security Offences Act were not
needed. Further it was unwilling to contemplate structural
changes.
In February 1991 a debate was held on an opposition motion
that the House of Commons concur in the committee's report
which recommended a parliamentary subcommittee on national
security. The subcommittee held its first meeting in June 1991.
On May 3, 1994 this same standing committee on justice and
legal affairs re-established the subcommittee on national
security which is the committee currently looking into the
Bristow affair. The motion was a close vote and almost did not
happen.
Let me now turn to the formation of the Security Intelligence
Review Committee, euphemistically known as SIRC. In 1984
the then newly installed Tory government announced the initial
membership of SIRC. In order to meet the requirements as
prescribed in the act as a condition to sit on SIRC, two
individuals had to be sworn in as Privy Councillors on the day of
their appointments. The politics had begun, the die was cast and
suspicions were raised. Naturally, due to the Privy Council
appointment requirements, four of the first five appointees were
ex-cabinet ministers and the fifth a well placed Quebec City
lawyer.
Today we have five politically appointed partisan individuals
on the review committee; three from the Tories, one from the
Liberals and one from the NDP. This was a Mulroneyism.
What is its function? The security committee is to act as the
eyes and ears of the public and Parliament on CSIS. The
committee is intended to be independent of the government and
its operations but responsible to the Parliament of Canada. The
CSIS act provides that its members are appointed by the
Governor General in Council after consultation with the leaders
of all parties having more than 12 members in the House of
Commons.
Is it independent? Is it another politically charged patronage
agency made up primarily of Tory cronies? Is it conducting
constructive and an apolitical review of CSIS and its activities?
We need to know and perhaps the only way is to investigate the
investigators.
We do not want to emulate the travesties perpetrated by our
neighbours who have created monsters in the form of the CIA. If
we are not vigilant and take the time to review agencies like
CSIS after 10 years of work, it is easy to lose control of their
function and scope of activity.
(1335 )
Under the legislation SIRC does not have access to cabinet
documents. For this reason I suggest that the requirement that
members of SIRC have Privy Council designation or past
cabinet experience is unnecessary and should be abolished.
Instead have individuals cleared by the RCMP and if they meet
the top security clearance available they fit.
Why would one require a PC designation when one does not
have access to cabinet documents? This change would lend itself
to appointing independent members and not has been cabinet
members.
I would also like to recommend changes to the length of
appointments to SIRC. Currently the five-year appointment
allows a former administration to protect itself from a new
administration. At the present time we have the first of the Tory
appointments to SIRC expiring in December 1996 and the latest
one in 1998. All may survive this administration, assuming the
next election is held before December 1996. Four or five will
survive if the election is held before November 1997.
At the same time the Liberal committee appointee, Michel
Robert, the same individual who worked Saturdays and has a
non-tendered $249,000 contract from the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, ensures that the current
administration has one of its cronies who can keep track of
things. It is a joke and nothing more than political patronage that
surely does not lend itself to independent review of CSIS
operations.
What we need is legislative permanence being granted the
parliamentary subcommittee on security and legislative
authority as well. This will at least meet the original
recommendation of the 1991 review of national security and
give us a body whose investigative powers include the ability to
investigate cabinet, which SIRC cannot.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Madam
Speaker, I want to recognize the very thorough job my colleague
opposite has done in preparing and delivering this speech. It was
refreshing to hear recalled some items of recent history.
I appreciated the relatively thorough research that he
obviously did in relation to the mechanism for appointing
members to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. He
has articulated a concern in relation to those appointments, i.e.,
the method by which consultation is or is not done with leaders
of the parties in the House of Commons before such
appointments are made. This is a point that I raised in the House
in the last Parliament.
6325
At that time, as an individual member, I appeared not to have
been heard by the then Prime Minister, who is solely
responsible for those appointments, so the hon. member's
remarks are refreshing.
I would like to ask him if he could elaborate on what process
would be used in relation to a possible parliamentary
subcommittee that would be different from what exists now in
Parliament, where there is a subcommittee whose mandate
includes the general area of oversight of the security
intelligence envelope.
Could he elaborate or provide more particulars as to how he
would change what is there now in relation to parliamentary
committee operations?
Mr. Duncan: Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the
very important role that the member opposite has played in
establishing that subcommittee. He has been the driving force. I
must say I have had a crash course in CSIS since notification
that this motion was coming forward.
(1340)
I would like to see permanence of that standing subcommittee
through legislative authority. I would also like to see the
standing subcommittee have a very real role in the appointments
to SIRC. In other words they should have a vetting role as
opposed to just an interview role.
I would certainly be open to any other constructive
suggestions the member might have.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, the
overriding question that must be answered regarding the Brian
McInnis-Grant Bristow affair is whether CSIS and other
institutions of government were politicized by the Brian
Mulroney government and whether the McInnis-Bristow
incident was the premeditated extension of that politicization.
Rod Stamler, a former assistant commissioner of the RCMP
has indicated clearly, not only in Paul Palango's book Above the
Law, but in open line radio programs across the country that the
RCMP was politicized by the Mulroney government and that it
was denied a free hand in the investigation of political and other
corruption in Canada.
When we look for evidence of this very serious allegation we
see several disturbing incidents. We see the accusation of Shelly
Ann Clark about deception and deceit in the Canada-U.S. free
trade deal and her continuous complaint that her concerns were
never fully investigated by the RCMP.
We see the accusation of Glen Kealy of kickback schemes run
by members of the Mulroney government and in particular the
case of Roch LaSalle which has never been finalized in court.
We also see the case of Alan Eagleson, a close friend of the
former Prime Minister, where detailed evidence of wrongdoing
was placed in the hands of the RCMP, the Metro Toronto Police
and the Law Society of Upper Canada and absolutely nothing of
consequence was done.
Yet the U.S. justice department, after looking at the very same
evidence, have laid 34 indictments against Mr. Eagleson, issued
a warrant for his arrest, have frozen his American bank account
and have initiated extradition proceedings to have him stand
trial in the United States.
These incidents strongly support the allegations of Mr.
Stamler that there has been political interference in the
administration of the RCMP and in the administration of justice,
that politicization of the RCMP under the Mulroney government
did occur and that evidence of wrongdoing by government
members and friends of government was not, and has not, been
properly investigated.
I have been advised by individuals close to the situation that it
would be much easier to politicize the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service than to politicize the RCMP. When I asked
my sources to explain this I was told that the Solicitor General
has the power under the federal statutes to demand secret and
classified information, including complete files and names of
informants from CSIS.
This is supported by the fact that at least eight boxes of secret
and highly classified documents seized from Brian McInnis's
residence came directly from the Solicitor General's office.
Why does the Solicitor General have to have possession of such
highly secret documents? Why does he have to have possession
of CSIS documents at all?
This is evidence that Doug Lewis, the former Solicitor
General, was directly involved in the operation of CSIS. This
was not an arm's length relationship. Mr. Lewis was directly
involved.
(1345 )
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act grants the
Solicitor General full knowledge and power of direction over
the policies, operations and management of CSIS. As well, the
assistant deputy Solicitor General sits on the CSIS target
approval and review committee and has direct input into what
groups and individuals are targeted by CSIS.
The question is to what extent, if any, did the former Solicitor
General politicize CSIS either through the assistant deputy
Solicitor General who sat on the committee that determined who
and what CSIS was to target or his own direct involvement or
both? This question must be answered.
In the speech the Solicitor General gave in the House today he
attempted to negate the Bloc's request for a royal commission
hearing into this matter by claiming that SIRC has a mandate to
do the same work. This is not true. SIRC advised the
subcommittee looking into this matter that it could not
investigate matters once they reached the Solicitor General's
office. This means that SIRC has no power whatsoever to
determine whether the former Solicitor General politicized
CSIS. This is a central question
6326
beyond the mandate of SIRC. Was CSIS used for political
purposes under the direction of Doug Lewis?
Therefore, there is a need to look not just at this matter but to
look at the whole question of the politicizing of our federal
institutions by the Mulroney government, including CSIS and
the RCMP.
There is the clear suggestion that there has been a deliberate
dismantling of the division of power between those who create
the law and those who administer and enforce the law. This is the
much broader and more serious question raised by this whole
McInnis-Bristow issue and that is has the rule of law been
destroyed or harmed in this country?
Therefore I reject the submission made in this House today by
the present Solicitor General that SIRC can do the job. It is
obvious SIRC cannot look into misuse and abuse of political
powers within the office of the former Solicitor General or any
other institution of government. Therefore its mandate is
inadequate.
Our hopes must rest with the subcommittee. If the
subcommittee fails to get to the bottom of the issue and answer
all relevant questions, the demand for a full scale inquiry will be
justified at that point.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Madam
Speaker, I must admit that it was with some surprise that I took
note last night of the opposition motion that a royal commission
be invoked to deal with a number of allegations that have been
put in the media of late, over the last month or two, in relation to
both the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
and the security of documentation that emanates from CSIS and
as it might make its way to the minister who reports to this
House for CSIS which is the Solicitor General.
These events out of which the allegations arose took place
two, three, four years ago. In any event, the opposition has made
its motion. Before dealing with the substance of the motion I
would take note, as others perhaps have done before me, that the
use of the word illegal in the motion might be construed as
unparliamentary. That word has been found to be
unparliamentary in the past. I recognize the courtesy of the
opposition in changing the wording of the motion earlier today
to allegations of illegal activities.
I would have preferred to see the words allegations of
improper activities because no one has been very particular
about what illegality there might have been.
(1350 )
Any illegality there might have been would surely have been
related to the mandate of CSIS. To draw an analogy, if someone
in the department of agriculture decides they are going to do
something involving the Department of Health that is surely not
a matter of illegality per se.
In any event, I will abandon the technical issues and attempt
to speak to the motion.
Other colleagues in the House have noted appropriately the
work of CSIS on behalf of Canadians. CSIS has for 10 years
been carrying on this type of work which involves gathering and
analysis of intelligence and preparation of security clearances,
providing security reports and analysis to other departments of
government.
The member who just spoke referred to a security clearance
by the RCMP. The RCMP does not do security clearances. This
is the job carried out for Canadians by CSIS.
The work of CSIS focuses primarily around what are called
threats to the security of Canada and these defined threats are
outlined in section 2 of the CSIS act and they include espionage
and foreign influenced activities. Sometimes CSIS activity is
described under the category of counter intelligence. Some of
that work includes the so-called spying which occurs in Canada
on the part of some operations of other governments.
There is the area of counter terrorism. Terrorism may or may
not involve a foreign government and there is also a category of
threat to Canada which we call subversion but in relation to
which the service does not carry on any investigative activity
without the expressed consent of the Solicitor General. The last
time we checked here on the parliamentary side we did not find
any ongoing CSIS operations in relation to subversion.
Most of what CSIS does, most of the good work it does, never
gets reported. Because of the nature of the work it does not
prepare press releases every Friday afternoon for consumption
by the media or for that matter consumption by anyone. Most of
its good work is done quietly at desks using paper and computers
and good common sense. That work carries on both in making
security assessments and in the gathering of data mostly from
open source. Most of the data it gathers come from open sources
and it also has data that come from other non-open sources
which it gathers using appropriate and legal methods.
It assists both the Government of Canada and generally the
citizenry by keeping an eye on foreign government theft of
industrial secrets and it also keeps an eye on what we would call
foreign meddling, meddling in Canada by governments outside
Canada using whatever means it wishes. That is probably a bit of
a cat and mouse game that goes on in all countries of the world.
6327
Why does the official opposition request a royal
commission? We have in this country a statute that governs
CSIS, a statute that by comparison to other countries in the
world is relatively modern, up to date, effective.
(1355 )
I am not one of those who takes the view that the CSIS statute
is perfect. The record will show that I have attempted to make
constructive comments both in the House and in the CSIS five
year review on ways in which we could alter the CSIS statute. I
point out that not all countries do have statutes that govern their
security intelligence system.
As we speak today, I understand that the people of Great
Britain are about to invoke a statute which was recently passed
and codify a statute which oversees and regulates the work of the
security agency known as MI5. That is quite a step for the people
of Great Britain to take. They have never had a statute that
governed the area that James Bond used to work in. They will
then develop their statute as they see fit.
Australia has a foreign intelligence gathering agency which
has no statute. I believe that everyone in the agency is employed
by contract to one person and that person is employed by their
government. A single person constitutes this particular agency.
There is no statute that would confirm or deny even the
existence of the operations which that agency carries out.
In addition to our statute which has a series of sections that
oversees and monitors what CSIS does, we have the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, whose job it is to review
all of the work of CSIS, all of the work done under its mandate,
to make sure that work is done within the law and efficaciously.
There is a whole range of challenges there for the Security
Intelligence Review Committee.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members,
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6327
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
join my colleagues from Kitchener and Waterloo in paying
homage to Kitchener Mayor Dominic Cardillo.
Dominic Cardillo is being honoured today by the citizens of
Kitchener for his tremendous contribution to their city. He was
first elected as alderman in 1963 and has served as mayor of
Kitchener for the last 11 years. Such longevity during a time
when politicians are not very popular is a testament to Dom's
integrity and hard work.
Mayor Cardillo must be congratulated for his tireless
promotion of the interests of Kitchener. During his tenure
Kitchener has grown in population and has matured as a city. His
greatest achievement is the new city hall which provides a
strong, people oriented focus to the municipal government and
downtown Kitchener.
Dom Cardillo has been a model civic leader whose dedication
to the interests of his constituents will long be remembered.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, in the
red book, the Liberal Party promised to support defence
conversion. However, this promise applies only to the
English-speaking provinces, as the CNTU revealed yesterday.
The Maritime provinces, which lost 3,000 jobs when military
bases were closed, have now received $20 million to help
diversify their economy. Quebec lost nearly 1,000 jobs as a
result of similar cuts and received a meagre $200,000.
Furthermore, during the past four years, Quebec's defence
industry lost 7,000 jobs and is still waiting for the federal
government to adjust Defence Industry Productivity Program.
This is one more example of the injustice done to Quebec. The
Prime Minister's only concern is how to put Quebec in its place,
and he is doing a good job of it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to report that this past week the 10th Annual Canadian
Student Leadership Conference was held in my riding of
Yorkton-Melville. This conference originated 10 years ago in
Yorkton and has been growing ever since.
This year over 1,000 high school delegates and leaders came
from every province and territory in Canada, and even some
students from south of the border. It was an opportunity for them
to share their experiences with other student leaders and to
encourage one another in achieving their dreams.
At the same time as the student leadership conference, the
first annual Canadian high school finals rodeo championship
was held in Yorkton as well. This rodeo was also a highly
successful event and I am proud to report that the best high
school rodeo team is from Saskatchewan.
The top male high school champion was Jason Resch from
Saskatchewan and the top female high school rodeo champion
was Kelly Rood, also from Saskatchewan. Let us tip our hats to
our future leaders. Congratulations to all the organizers and
participants.
6328
By the way, the conference next year will be held in Bathurst,
New Brunswick.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, last week I received letters on a very serious issue from
the mayors of Brampton and Mississauga and the Coalition for
the safety of our daughters.
Both Mississauga and Brampton have bylaws that prevent
strip clubs from hiring persons under the age of 18. But many
municipalities across Canada do not have such bylaws in place
or do not have adequate resources to enforce them.
I join with the mayors of Brampton and Mississauga and with
the coalition in calling upon the Minister of Justice to
immediately amend the Criminal Code of Canada to provide for
the prosecution of strip club owners who employ persons under
the age of 18.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, as the
colours of the country's landscape begin to change and farmers
begin to harvest their crops, the annual fall fairs are now in full
swing. The fair is a longstanding tradition in Canadian
communities where families, friends and neighbours come
together to celebrate the autumn season.
In my riding of London-Middlesex I have had the
opportunity to attend and participate in the Dorchester Fair; the
Thorndale Fall Fair; the Lambeth Harvest Festival; the Iderton
Fair; and southwestern Ontario's largest, the Western Fair.
Tremendous community spirit and long hours of hard work
make these fairs memorable events enjoyed by both my rural
and urban constituents alike.
Congratulations to all the dedicated people in
London-Middlesex who worked so hard to make fairs the great
success they are.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, millions of
Canadians are quite distressed by the attempt of some to distract
us from the legitimate debate which must take place about guns
in Canadian society.
A large majority of Canadians want tougher gun control
because the presence of guns in our cities, our towns and our
homes decreases the safety of all of us. I understand the need of
hunters and farmers for long guns but gun ownership in this
country is a privilege, not a right.
These are the basic facts: Guns kill people and handguns in
particular have no other purpose. Registration of all weapons
would only be a minor inconvenience for those who need long
guns to hunt. Handguns and assault weapons are not needed for
hunting or by farmers for pest control.
I respect the right of Canadians to choose their hobbies but
hobbies should not dictate public policy. Demolition car drivers
do not control highway policy. Sport shooters should not try to
dictate gun policy.
I urge the government to ensure that public safety is
paramount in our gun policies. All considerations are not equal
in this debate. We must address the smuggling of weapons and
the use of guns in the commission of an offence, but outlawing
handguns and a registration system will contribute to a safer
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance is determined to remain silent about any
plans he may have to tax our RRSPs and refuses to make a
formal commitment not to tax them.
The Minister of Finance turns a deaf ear to public opinion and
is using current consultations to deflect any questions. Senior
citizens have often saved for years to have a decent income in
their old age.
What is the minister telling them today? That he cannot
guarantee their incomes will not be further reduced.
(1405)
The government wants to change the rules in the middle of the
game. Although the minister has been stalling for several days,
he will have to make a decision. Seniors hope he will select the
only fair option: no taxation of RRSPs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, remember
when you were a kid and your mother forced you to eat broccoli
even though you despised it? It looks like good old mother corp
is trying to force Canadians to swallow yet another concocted
dish. This one tastes more like stale fish.
First, the government floated the idea of taxing theatre tickets
and movie rentals to raise revenues for the floundering CBC. I
guess giving it over one billion bucks per year just is not enough.
Now CBC television wants cable companies across the country
to carry a new French language all-news station. It seems the
companies do not want to carry it so mother corp wants the
CRTC to force them to run it, even if no one wants the service,
and this with our national debt exploding at over $530 billion.
6329
At least when mom forced us to eat our broccoli she had our
best interests in mind and she did not charge us for it.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, Canadians in their
actions are demonstrating our prowess as peacekeepers and as
providers of humanitarian aid.
I think of a resident of Brant and a good friend of mine, Sidne
Maddison, who one day in June received a phone call asking for
her assistance in Rwanda with Médecins sans frontières. By the
end of the day she had left her job and her family and left for
Rwanda to act as a nurse.
On her return home she spoke of other Canadians who worked
with her in her organization, in the Canadian Red Cross, and of
course our armed forces personnel who daily risked their lives in
the name of peace.
These people truly are ambassadors for Canada. I salute them
for their courage, for their commitment to humanity, and for
extending the good name of Canada across the world.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday a
man was saved from drowning in Prospect Bay by two brave
men. Gary and Richard Peddle of Whites Lake in my riding of
Halifax West demonstrated great courage as they pulled 74-year
old John Laverdure from the water.
Mr. Laverdure, a neighbour of the Peddle family, was more
than a metre under when Gary plunged into the chilly waters of
Prospect Bay and pulled back to the boat. District 4 volunteer
firefighters are also to be commended for aiding Mr. Laverdure
once back to the wharf.
I am pleased to inform the House that John Laverdure has
been released from hospital and is very well, thanks to the
efforts of Richard, Gary, and the entire Peddle family. It is
indeed heart warming to know that such acts of selflessness and
bravery still exist.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow we celebrate National Translation Day. Many of us on
Parliament Hill regularly take advantage of the exceptional
services provided by interpreters, translators and terminologists
who belong to the Canadian Union of Professional and Technical
Employees.
[English]
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that translation is offered in both
official languages and indeed in over 100 languages for the
Government of Canada, its elected members and its civil
service. We are fortunate to have such dedicated, efficient,
capable personnel to provide us with these exceptional services.
I extend to them very sincere thanks on behalf of all of us in
the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister says that he has found no indication of a commitment
on the part of the previous government to pay Quebec for its
expenses in the Charlottetown referendum and it is on that basis
that the Prime Minister refuses to pay Quebec. However, in the
case of Ginn Publishing, where there had been a verbal
commitment, the Prime Minister did not hesitate one moment to
honour that commitment, quite the contrary.
It is obvious that verbal commitments do not all have the same
weight in Ottawa. The federal government prefers to honour a
shameful, anonymous and unacceptable commitment rather
than an honourable agreement between the Prime Minister and
the Premier.
Quebecers are fed up with paying for such an expensive
government system. They have had their fill of the federal
excuses. You wanted proof, you have it. Now pay up.
* * *
(1410 )
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt stated that the Reform
Party brass, not the grassroots, decide what policies would be
debated at our assembly.
This is absolute nonsense. The membership of the Reform
Party controls every step of the policy making process. Not only
does its members decide what will be on the agenda; their votes
at assembly actually establish party policy.
I am very pleased at the member's conversion to the
principles of democracy. After all, the member for
Saskatoon-Humboldt was hand picked, or should I say
anointed, by her party leader in the last election. Despite
numerous protests from the riding association the Liberal Party
elites refused to allow other candidates to contest the
nomination.
6330
Liberals from Saskatoon-Humboldt were denied the most
basic democratic right: to choose their own candidate. The
Reform Party not only allows the grassroots to participate-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, last
week the hon. member for Laurentides quite belatedly took up
the issue of the
Irving Whale wreck. I think it is now time to
recall what this government and other members of Parliament
have done to solve this 24-year old problem.
On the second and third of March, the Gagnon-Easter
Committee held public meetings in Prince Edward Island and in
the Magdalen Islands. On March 18, the Minister of
Environment and the Minister of Transport announced that the
Government of Canada had decided to refloat that boat that has
been lying in deep water for almost 8,600 days.
It took only 135 days for this government to remedy the
situation. It should be stressed that the Leader of the Opposition,
when he was Minister of the Environment, had refused to
intervene even if he was aware of the dangers of that time bomb
and despite the recommendations of the study report on the
security of tankers that he had commissioned.
Our public hearings and the environmental evaluation have
confirmed that the refloating option was the best solution and
the safest for the environment as well as for the local population.
The Irving Whale wreck will be refloated next summer, as the
government has promised to do. Unlike the Leader of the
Opposition, on this issue, we have faced up to our
responsibilities.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, gun control
is part of an important package of crime prevention measures
the government is serious about embarking upon.
This week I met with members of the Burlington Rifle Club,
an organization located in my riding with members from several
area ridings. The club's safety director, several of its members
and I had a terrific discussion about ways we could improve
safety in our communities and measures gun owners and gun
vendors could take to help the government help our
communities become safer for women, for children and for men.
The package of justice bills currently before the House, the
new National Crime Prevention Council, the work of several of
our ministers and more effective gun control will improve and
protect the quality of life for all Canadians.
Let us all work together toward these objectives.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, with great
anticipation I attended the CAVEAT convention in Hamilton,
Ontario. I believed, in listening to various groups and
individuals attending, I could get some new ideas and new
procedures that would help address the problems in our justice
system.
I heard many good suggestions, but I also heard that getting
support for these good suggestions would be difficult because
there are no funds to improve justice, victims' rights, restitution
and safety for the citizens.
I mention this because no sooner did I hear the government
had no funds for justice than I was told the government had $12
million to build a commercial building in Edmonton that would
house doctors, lawyers, private associations, a bank and a
restaurant, all private enterprises that could fund their own
working environment.
It seems the government can spend $12 million to support
associations, professions and private enterprise but has no funds
to give to justice and give justice to Canadians.
We now know what is important to the government, and one
thing is for sure: it is not justice.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will eventually embark
on an analysis of Bill C-41. Among other things the legislation
proposes changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code.
I rise in the House today to encourage members of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to give serious
consideration to the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal
Code. Clearly the time has come to revisit the appropriateness of
a legal loophole that allows first degree murderers to apply for a
reduction in their parole after serving only 15 years of a
so-called life sentence without parole for 25 years.
6331
(1415 )
Many of my constituents, community groups, organizations,
people right across this great country have said enough is
enough. The status quo is unacceptable.
The choice is clear. Section 745 of the Criminal Code must be
eliminated.
_____________________________________________
6331
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister has been
refusing for the past few days to rule out the possibility of taxing
RRSPs in his next budget. Several analysts have come out
against this retroactive tax penalizing middle-income
taxpayers. Claude Picher, from La Presse, states that it would be
very unwise of Ottawa to keep dipping into the taxpayers'
pockets. He adds that it would be all the more objectionable
since the first ones to be hit would be unorganized private sector
employees.
Does the Minister of Finance not realize that, by hiding
behind his pre-budget consultations to avoid undertaking not to
tax RRSPs, he is the only one to blame for causing fear and
worry amongst taxpayers in Quebec and Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon.
member, who ask the same question for the third time yesterday,
he is the one causing worry. I can only repeat it again, in
response to the question he has already asked four times this
week.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): All the Minister of
Finance has to do, Mr. Speaker, to dispel worry is to say that he
will not do it.
Does he not recognize that, by taxing RRSPs, he is changing
the rules of the game in mid-game and taking actions which
make his government seem to be cheating by completely
changing the investment rules in planning-
The Speaker: Order! Perhaps the hon. member could be so
good as to choose another word.
Mr. Brien: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance
recognize that, by taxing RRSPs, he is changing the rules of the
game in mid-game and that taking actions associated with an
irresponsible government, by disrupting the financial planning
of seniors who depend on the income from their RRSPs to ensure
a comfortable retirement for themselves?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member
who is irresponsible when he tries to disrupt the pre-budget
consultation process and in fact prevent it from taking place. I
hope that he will raise these issues at the finance committee
when it deals with this matter.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
while the government and the Bloc are squabbling about who is
going to pay $47 million for the referendum I point out that the
national debt is growing by $47 million every nine hours. That is
putting things in perspective.
The premier of Quebec says he will not play ball with the
government's social review. We all know that the separatists
have no interest in making a positive contribution to Canada.
They just want out.
Will the Prime Minister commit to implementing social
reform in spite of obstructive tactics of the separatists.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
intends to proceed constructively. I am sure that the members of
the Bloc Quebecois when they see the basis for the social policy
reforms will be working with the government to try to make
positive changes for Canada.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development
misrepresented the Reform position on spending reductions.
It is the government's own deficit target, your own deficit
target, that calls for up to $15 billion in total spending cuts.
Will the finance minister acknowledge that reaching his
deficit target of about $25 billion from a current deficit of about
$40 billion that the government will have to cut up to $15 billion
and is the minister going to cut spending or increase taxes?
(1420 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that
government is going to have to cut its spending. We look
forward to the consultations with the finance committee in order
to determine exactly where Canadians stand.
We are also looking forward to hearing from the Reform
Party, which has talked so much about cutting spending, and
seeing if they can come up with any constructive suggestions as
to where.
6332
An hon. member: It is in the blue book, not the red book.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): On raising
taxes or cutting spending?
The Minister of Human Resources Development has indicated
that the major focus of his action plan will be child poverty. Can
the Minister of Finance explain how the government can help
anyone out of poverty when it is mortgaging our future by
running up the deficit to the tune of $1,500 for every man, for
every woman and for every child in the country?
Your deficit spending is adding to their poverty, not solving it.
The Speaker: I know it is a small oversight but please address
the Chair.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the nature of the
problems facing the country is in no doubt because of the very
large financial deficit. This country is heavily indebted and we
have to come to grips with it. We did so in stage one, which was
the last budget. We intend to do so very clearly in stage two,
which is going to be the next budget.
The member opposite raises the question of child poverty. It is
quite ironic that question is coming from a member of the
Reform Party, which is prepared to acknowledge, as we do the
very severe financial deficit in the country, but it has never once
acknowledged the very severe human deficit which we in this
side of the House intend to address.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
in an interview shown on the ``Téléjournal'' on October 1, 1993,
the Prime Minister promised not to raise taxes during the first
two years of a Liberal government. The Minister of Finance, for
his part, said yesterday that no option or suggestion should be
ruled out in the pre-budget consultation process, including that
of taxing RRSPs.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can the
Minister of Finance leave the door open to taxing RRSPs, when
the Prime Minister, his Prime Minister, promised during the
election campaign not to raise taxes in the first two years of
Liberal rule?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister
said is that the tax burden of Canadians must not be increased.
Besides, we stated very clearly in the red book that
ultimately-that is one of the reasons we must reduce the
deficit-any government has a responsibility to lower the level
of taxation.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance should read again the newspaper article
in which the Prime Minister clearly said that taxes would not be
raised in the first two years of a Liberal government. Not the tax
burden but taxes themselves.
Does the Minister of Finance not think that he would be acting
more responsibly if, instead of penalizing taxpayers by taxing
RRSPs, he made a commitment right now in this House to
reduce the Liberal government's huge operating expenditures
and to make his friends, the friends of the wealthiest Canadians,
pay by eliminating the tax loopholes they enjoy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had
read the last budget, he would have seen that we eliminated
many tax loopholes, like the $100,000 capital gains exemption.
We certainly eliminated corporate tax loopholes. Had he read
the budget, he would have seen that we took very significant
measures in the last budget and we intend to do the same thing in
the next budget.
I hope that the hon. member-and I urge him to do so-will
offer us constructive suggestions during sittings of the finance
committee.
* * *
(1425)
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, you will
know that one of the most ancient and most basic rights of
Parliament is the right of free speech. Furthermore we practise
this extensively to the point of tolerating 54 members of
Parliament who use it for the primary purpose of breaking up the
country.
According to press reports it is now the policy of the
government that this right cannot be exercised when it involves
government members whose moral and religious views may
conflict with government policy.
Can the government categorically deny these reports and
assure the House that government members, and all members,
have the right to object to government policy on moral and
religious bases in the House and outside of the House, whether
those views are the same as those of the Minister of Justice or
not?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the
resolutions that emanated for the table of the Reform Party
conference coming up, I think the member would be well
advised to look after the affairs of his own party as compared to
the affairs of the Government of Canada.
6333
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, as we
have come to expect, that answer was wonderfully irrelevant.
The supplementary question I have is on the issue of free
votes. It has been the practice in the House and in most
legislatures that on basic moral issues there are free votes. Even
the NDP government in Ontario recently allowed free votes on
issues related to sexual orientation.
Will the government remove the whips and allow free votes
on issues of sexual orientation that pertain to government
legislation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is the position of the
Government of Canada to defend the policies of the Government
of Canada. One of the policies of the Government of Canada is
that sexual orientation should not be grounds for discrimination
and we intend to so proceed with the Canadian Human Rights
Act.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, during the last election campaign, as a result of which
we were elected, the government gave thousands of Quebecers
in eastern Quebec to understand that the federal contribution to
private forest development in Gaspé and the Lower St.
Lawrence would be maintained until 1998. The Minister of
Natural Resources said in the House that she did want the
program to continue but that her colleague responsible for
regional development in Quebec would have to release the funds
required to finance it. The newspaper
Le Soleil tells us today that
her colleague is waiting for recommendations from the
minister-
The Speaker: Order! I would ask the hon. member to put his
question.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if she was
able to convince her colleague responsible for regional
development in Quebec to extend the Eastern Plan? If not, can
she explain to us the reasons for her failure?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me assure my hon. colleague that everyone on the
government side understands and appreciates the economic
importance of private woodlot owners to Quebec and in
particular, the region of eastern Quebec and the Gaspé.
Let me also say that since February I have taken the
opportunity to meet with private woodlot owners from Quebec
and elsewhere on six separate occasions.
As the hon. member pointed out, my colleague, the minister
responsible for regional development in Quebec, and I have
made a commitment to meet with private woodlot owners in
eastern Quebec. He and I will deliver on that commitment in an
attempt to resolve this acknowledged important issue for the
province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, the wood producers have had enough of committees on
development in their area. However, the question is
straightforward. Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell us
whether or not the federal government is withdrawing from the
Eastern Plan and thus abandoning the thousands of workers who
depend on it?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me beseech, let me implore, my friend to suggest to
his provincial counterparts that they send a political delegation
next week to the ministers of forestry meeting in the province of
New Brunswick, in Fredericton, where the issue of continued
federal involvement in the forestry sector will be discussed.
As I say, I beseech him to encourage his provincial colleagues
to be there at the political level to engage in this discussion. That
is where resolution will take place.
* * *
(1430 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, one of the Prime
Minister's most important foreign affairs jobs is promoting
Canadian exports outside of this country. This is what will
provide jobs, jobs, jobs. We support this role and the Team
Canada approach in China.
However I must ask: How is the Prime Minister going to
handle the threat posed by Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Landry to
sabotage the upcoming Canadian trade missions by using them
as a forum to spread their separatist agenda?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been
very clear and open about the fact that it is important to involve
the provinces in the job of Team Canada. He is very concerned in
fact that the premier of Quebec should be there with Team
Canada. The invitation is open to the premier.
The Prime Minister knows that the premier of Quebec was
elected on an economic platform. We hope he joins the Prime
Minister and all other first ministers in the job of selling Team
Canada so that we can create Canadian jobs in every province,
including Quebec.
6334
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, the jobs created by
our export promotion missions are for Canadians, including
Quebecers. Therefore any disruptions by the PQ will be costing
the people of Quebec jobs. That is the point we have to make.
Is it not time for the Prime Minister to proceed and involve the
Quebec business community in the trade mission and ignore the
disruptive politicians if they continue?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec business
community is very supportive of the Prime Minister's trip. I am
sure members of the Quebec business community will be
communicating to their premier how important it will be for him
to be part of Team Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, it
has been announced that a second north-south runway at
Pearson International Airport will be completed as soon as
possible. This runway has far reaching safety and economic
implications.
Can the Minister of Transport assure the residents of
Mississauga that the new runway will be used for landings only?
Will he assure them that any discussion of further construction
in the form of new east-west runways and all such decision
making will not occur until the new Canadian airport authority
is established to take over the operation of Pearson?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
we have announced that we will complete the work that has
already begun on the north-south runway at Pearson. A lot of
work has been done and we intend to complete it. It will be used
relatively few times and only when it is required for weather and
safety conditions.
With respect to the east-west runways, we now have all of the
nominees from metropolitan Toronto for the Canadian airport
authority at Pearson. The federal nominees have been chosen as
well. I an awaiting a response from Premier Rae for the province
of Ontario nominee. When that is done we will try to put in place
a transitional team based on those appointments to assist us in
making decisions with respect to the future of Pearson.
I want to assure the member and the citizens who would be
affected by the construction of the east-west runways that
absolutely no decision will be taken on that matter until the CAA
is in place and functioning at Pearson International Airport.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup just
pointed out, thousands of jobs depend on extending the Eastern
Quebec Development Plan. The issue is not whether the Quebec
government will be represented at a conference, but whether the
minister responsible for regional development will extend the
agreement to 1998, as he promised to do.
Considering that hundreds of jobs hinge on the extension of
that plan in one of the most hard-hit regions in Quebec, will the
minister pledge today to allocate the necessary funds requested
by his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources?
(1435 )
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned earlier we on the government side are
fully aware of the importance of private woodlot owners to the
economy of Quebec.
I have met with representatives of private woodlot owners in
Quebec. My colleague the minister responsible for regional
development and I will meet again with those individuals. We
hope to resolve this important economic matter in the near
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, if
the government is really concerned about this issue, why did the
minister responsible for regional development promise to meet
all those involved in the region last summer and then go back on
his word?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me say in defence of my colleague the minister
responsible for regional development for Quebec that indeed a
meeting was planned and due to my schedule that meeting had to
be cancelled. We are in the process of organizing yet another
meeting with the private woodlot owners.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, the Victoria
Times
Colonist is reporting that DFO is in a shambles and morale has
never been lower. Not only that but a leaked DFO document
given to me by Ernie Fedoruk of the
Times Colonist blames the
unprecedented levels of poaching of salmon on Vancouver
Island directly on a shortage of enforcement officers.
6335
In light of the mounting evidence does the minister still have
the audacity to stand up in this House and tell us what a fine
job of protecting the resource his department is doing?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Delta for his question.
As the minister and I have indicated in this House before,
there is an independent review going on which the hon. member
stood up and asked for. Part of the mandate of that review is to
look at enforcement.
Unlike the hon. member across the way, we will look at all
facts and will not start making allegations or accusations
without getting the facts. That is what the independent review
board is all about. Once we have seen the facts this government
will act as it has in the past, in a comprehensive, rational and
pragmatic way, not in a knee jerking panicky way.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, the minister fines
fishermen in Newfoundland thousands of dollars for jigging a
few cod for supper and looks the other way while thousands of
fish are poached in B.C.
The leaked document and others indicate quite clearly that
management problems at DFO extend beyond the Fraser River
and beyond the professional capabilities of scientists appointed
to the minister's review panel.
Will the minister disband his in-house collection of scientists
and request a judicial inquiry into DFO's management of the
west coast salmon fishery?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker,
environmental assessment hearings surrounding low level test
flights over Labrador started last week. The Innu Association of
Labrador has chosen not to participate in the hearings because it
feels the process has not been an open and fair one.
What assurances can the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of Environment give us that the concerns of the Innu are being
fairly addressed and that the process is a fair and open one?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as I reported in the House
earlier this week I had an opportunity to meet with
representatives of the Innu community yesterday. We had some
very broad discussions around the role of the panel. I assured
them that if there is one shred of evidence that the panel is biased
I will be the first to act to replace panel members.
Those discussions are continuing. In the absence of any
evidence I am working with the Innu and urging them to come
back to the table. If they want the environmental process on low
level flying to work, their voices need to be heard and the
process has to be a fair and open one. We are committed to that
fair and open process and we want them to participate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
unexpected question is for the Minister of Transport.
(1440)
Last July 13, in the middle of summer, when Canadians were
on vacation, the Minister of Transport announced a national air
transportation strategy. This strategy is patterned on the airport
policy which will impact all regions of Quebec and Canada.
Does the minister have a contingency plan to keep airports
open, should local airport authorities become unable to fulfill
their management mandate?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member just mentioned, the implementation of a
national airport policy was made public and three levels of
airports were identified. I hope that, with the co-operation of all
those concerned, we will succeed in implementing an efficient
and safe system, as well as one which will reduce the taxpayers'
burden.
We do not want to prejudge how things will go. We have two
to five years to come up with final solutions based on problems
experienced in each of the affected locations. I hope to be able to
count on the hon. member's co-operation to arrive at the best
possible solution. If things do not workout, we will review the
situation. However, based on the results so far, I am very
confident that the system announced last July will be a real
success right across the country.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, before
making his plan public, did the minister ensure that
municipalities had the necessary financial resources to manage
regional airports without any reduction in services?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I am sure the hon. member knows that there are some 725
certified airports in Canada.
Transport Canada is involved in the management of only 150
of those airports, either as owner or operator. Already, in every
province, there are airports operating very successfully, without
federal involvement. The hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and his colleagues from the
opposition keep reminding us of the need to manage our
operations efficiently and to reduce the deficit. This is precisely
what we are trying to do.
6336
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal promise to restore trust and public confidence in the
government has been broken. The Liberals criticized the
Conservative government for the appointment of its political
friends. They said they would appoint people only on the basis
of competence. There are many very competent people who are
not high level Liberals, yet once again yesterday or the day
before we saw that this government has appointed one of its
own.
My question is for the Prime Minister. I notice the Prime
Minister is not here but it is directed to him.
The Speaker: I invite the hon. member to put his question.
Mr. Schmidt: I stand corrected. My apologies, Mr. Speaker.
How can the public trust be restored when this government
continues to blatantly make patronage appointments to reward
their loyal Liberals?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Verchères.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, while
Canada has won all the binational panel reviews on the matter,
the American government is now considering the possibility of
paying back the 800 million dollars it owes to timber producers
in Canada and Quebec. United States politicians and
businessmen are furious against Canada and the very integrity of
the Free Trade Agreement is threatened.
(1445)
Meanwhile, the Minister for International Trade can do no
better than hope that a cheque will come in soon.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Why
is he content with just waiting for the Americans to pay us back?
Why does he not demand that this circus be stopped and that the
sums owing be paid immediately? All we are asking is for the
government to put its foot down on this issue.
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, the United States is reimbursing the amounts
collected after March of this year. With regard to the amounts
collected prior to March, the process is under way for the full
reimbursement of the outstanding amount plus interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, we would
like this government to assume its responsibilities towards the
timber producers. Can the government assure this House that it
will take all the steps required in order to solve this problem
before the end of the current year? The minister seems to forget
that almost a billion dollars are at stake here.
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I fully share the member's eagerness to see this
situation resolved. We have pursued our discussions with the
United States administration at the highest level. We have
received assurances that the amounts will be fully refunded.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, a report on the
funding of interest groups is scheduled to be completed by the
Treasury Board tomorrow.
Will the President of the Treasury Board commit to
immediate action and tell this House how soon we can expect
big cuts to special interest groups, saving the taxpayers millions
of dollars in wasted spending?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
there will be no announcement tomorrow if that is what is
anticipated by the hon. member.
However, I will say that the staff of the Treasury Board has
been working on guidelines. We will issue guidelines to the
various departments with respect to dealing with the issue of
special interest groups and their funding. We will be asking the
different departments to address this issue in the framework of
the program review.
I do anticipate, like all other aspects of the program review,
that there will be cuts because we do need to have these cuts to
get our spending in line and get the deficit down. Therefore, we
will be issuing those guidelines to the various departments to
examine their grants.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, we were led to
believe that an announcement was coming tomorrow. There had
been a study commissioned by the previous government that was
produced last February. Here we are talking about more
discussions and having more debate about when and where we
are going to cut.
How soon will we get serious action on the cutting of funds to
special interest groups so that the Minister of Finance can make
some real cuts in the deficit which has to be addressed today?
6337
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
it will be part and parcel of the program review which is in turn
part and parcel of the consultation process that the Minister of
Finance will be engaging in. When the budget is out next
February members will see those cuts and how they are going
to be made.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General and Leader of the
Government in the House. During a recent debate in the House
of Commons on the financing of political parties, many
members from all political parties supported a motion to ensure
democratic and popular financing of political parties, by putting
a $5000 ceiling on public contributions to federal political
parties.
Since a dozen of his government colleagues supported that
motion, does the Leader of the Government recognize the need
for the democratization of the financing of political parties by
using the Quebec model?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we already have a democratic system for collecting election
funds, but we could conduct a study on this matter by using the
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It is not my
responsibility to take such a request to that committee, but I
think it would be a useful matter for the committee to examine in
due time.
(1450)
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, must we
understand from the response of the Leader of the Government
in the House that he prefers unlimited financing by big
corporations as opposed to ordinary citizens to ensure the
operation of his party, the Liberal Party of Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the member got me wrong. All members in this House
are interested in that matter and that is why I suggest that it be
examined by the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
although the motion was rejected by a majority in the House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, Health Canada
approved silicon breast implants, many of them made by Dow
Corning. Many women today are suffering because of that
decision.
Now the health minister has commissioned a study to look at
the effects. Who is financing that study?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that I will have to take
under advisement and ask the Minister of Health because I do
not know of any such study at the moment.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, Dow Corning has
just settled out of court in the U.S. for some $4 billion. Who do
you think is funding this study?
The Speaker: I take it the question is posed to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and not to me.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, the settlements that have been made in
the United States are an entirely different matter from the hon.
member's first question.
You know that the Government of Canada had applied to-
The Speaker: Order. I would ask all hon. members, please do
not forget I am getting lonely up here again.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably aware
that during that settlement the Canadian government did
intercede on behalf of Canadian women who were involved in
the settlement by applying to become a friend of the court. We
also have a 1-800 number for Canadian women to call with
regard to this issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I was very
much surprised when the Prime Minister said he had not been
informed of the commitment his predecessor made with respect
to the referendum. I made inquiries, and I later found that before
Question Period yesterday, the Prime Minister knew that his
predecessor had promised the Government of Quebec he would
submit to his government a request to compensate Quebec for
referendum expenses.
I would like to know from the government why the Prime
Minister did not give this information to the House of Commons
yesterday?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I think the present situation is quite clear and has been
explained several times in the House. There is no evidence in
our files that a commitment was finalized. In the past few days,
the Prime Minister got in touch with the former Prime Minister,
Mr. Mulroney, to find out whether there had been a definite
commitment, and he asked him to indicate, in writing, what his
position was. As soon as we know the former Prime Minister's
6338
position on whether he made a definite commitment, we will act
accordingly.
(1455)
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, my
question to the government is quite clear and it is this:
Yesterday, the Prime Minister knew, because his predecessor
had told him before Question Period, that he had made a
commitment to submit Quebec's request to the government. I
would like to know why yesterday in this House, the Prime
Minister did not share that information with Parliament and why
instead, he insinuated there had been some unlawful activity?
[English]
The Speaker: This question is, if I understand it, directly
posed to the Prime Minister who is not in theChamber at this
time.
Is it to the Deputy Prime Minister?
[Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made no
insinuations whatsoever. Today, the only insinuation has come
from the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Now, the Prime Minister
is waiting for a letter from Brian Mulroney because a lot is said
on the telephone. We want to see the truth in writing, and that is
what we are waiting for. The Prime Minister said that as soon as
he sees a commitment by the federal government in writing, he
will act on that commitment. That is exactly what he said
yesterday in the House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Some Canadians have the wrong impression that immigrants
take jobs and abuse our social security system. I have serious
concerns about the growing backlash against immigrants and
refugees.
What is the minister doing to address these concerns and to
inform the Canadian public about the real and positive
contributions that immigrants do make to Canadian society?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague
for the question which is a good question, because sometimes
we allow mythology to wrap itself around this policy we call
immigration. Rather than point to government, we should
perhaps look at the study that was released by the Clarke
Institute this week, a study of 1,300 former Vietnamese boat
people spanning some 10 years.
It found individuals who were a tremendous success story.
One out of every five started a business; 99 per cent of them
became Canadian citizens; 7.3 per cent used the social system
rather than the 10 per cent of the rest of Canadians.
What this paints is a distinction between fact and fiction.
Hopefully that lesson is not lost on these customers who
continue to spin mythology around immigration.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, as you know, the Prime Minister was supposed to be in
the House today. That is the information we were given.
However, at the beginning of the sitting, we were advised he
would be late and, with your consent, we agreed to wait with our
questions. Since he is not here, I will have to put a question to
the Deputy Prime Minister, following the answer she gave the
hon. member for Sherbrooke. I realize we do not have enough
time, so I will ask only one question. But do not worry, we will
get you next time around!
(1500)
Am I to understand from the Deputy Prime Minister's reply to
a question from the hon. member for Sherbrooke that the Prime
Minister was aware, as a result of a telephone conversation he
had with Mr. Mulroney, that the latter had promised to treat
Quebec equitably and compensate it for its referendum
expenses, and that the Prime Minister will not take Mr.
Mulroney, who is an honourable man, at his word and wants to
see this confirmed in writing?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, when the Prime Minister spoke to Mr. Mulroney, they
agreed that Mr. Mulroney would send him a reply in writing,
stating his position on the existence of an agreement between
the Government of Quebec and the federal government.
That is what the Prime Minister stated in the House, and the
situation has not changed.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I wish to draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ali
Hassan Mwinyi, President of the United Republic of Tanzania.
6339
I wish also to draw the attention of the House to the presence
in the gallery of the Hon. Geoff Smith, Minister for Lands,
Queensland, Australia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the Government House Leader to indicate what the
business of the House will be for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
this afternoon we will continue with the Bloc opposition day.
Tomorrow we will begin by returning to the debate on Bill C-22
regarding Pearson airport, followed by second reading of Bill
C-52, the government services and public works reorganization
bill.
On Monday we will begin with second reading of Bill C-53,
the Canadian heritage reorganization bill, followed by Bill C-52
if that was not completed on Friday. We will follow this with Bill
C-42, the miscellaneous amendments to the Criminal Code.
On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week the business will be
in the following order. We will begin with second reading of Bill
C-51, the Canada Grains Act, followed by second reading of
Bill C-47, the foreign affairs reorganization bill.
If the House has not already completed Bills C-52 and C-42
we will then turn to them in the order mentioned. We will then
return to other debates already begun but not completed in an
order that we will consult on with the other parties.
On Thursday and Friday of next week we are proposing that a
take note debate on the initiative of the government be held on
the discussion paper on social security reform which is to be
tabled, I believe, next Wednesday. This is to enable members to
make their views known in this important, ongoing national
discussion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
raise a point of order on two matters. I also want to mention,
since it just happened, that after Question Period, you called the
usual Thursday question, but I always thought that after
Question Period, Questions of Privilege and Points of Order
were called first.
(1505)
I just mention this in passing. It is not a point of order but I
think it is important to bring this up, because we have certain
traditions and customs.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes members as items are
called. I did not see anyone else. If the hon. member is referring
to himself, I did not see him, except when the hon. member for
Roberval was speaking. That is why I got back to him, but I am
very much aware of the Standing Orders of this House.
Mr. Charest: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I realize it may
sometimes be difficult to see this far, but it is all part of what we
expect the Chair to be able to do. That is why I sent you a note,
advising you that I wished to rise on a point of order.
I wanted to raise the following matter. During Question
Period, you rose twice to ask to whom members were directing
their questions. To my knowledge-and my memory is not
infallible-when a member of the opposition puts a question, it
is necessarily directed to the government. He addresses the
Chair, in other words, he must address the government through
the Chair. As for the particular person to whom the question is
directed, that person is indicated only as a matter of courtesy.
I am merely pointing out what I assume to be the usual custom
in this House, since the government is perfectly free to reply
through any member of Cabinet.
The Speaker: The hon. member is absolutely right. There is
no doubt about that. The second time was indeed a mistake and I
apologize. If that was the purpose of your point of order, you are
absolutely right that when a question is put by a member, that
question is directed to the government. I agree with that, if that
was the purpose of your point of order.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may finish my
comments, since there was another matter I wished to raise. You
may have noticed that my question was directed to the Prime
Minister. Like other members in this House, I had understood
the Prime Minister was to be present during Question Period.
That is why I directed my question to him. Subsequently, you
said that the Prime Minister was not in the House.
I must admit this bothers me, and I will explain. We also have
a Standing Order that is well-known in this House, which
prohibits anyone from drawing attention to the absence of other
members. A Standing Order that is usually observed.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, you are absolutely right. I was
at fault and I apologize. It will not happen again, and I accept
your comments in the spirit in which they were intended.
6340
6340
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
my discourse was interrupted by Question Period. I will attempt
to pick up roughly where we left off.
We were describing before we broke for Question Period the
request of the Official Opposition for a royal commission and it
was my view at that time, and it still is, that is an ill advised
request.
(1510 )
We were discussing that in Canada we have statute law that
oversees and creates CSIS. We have the Security Intelligence
Review Committee that reviews the work of CSIS. We have a
justice committee and a subcommittee on security and
intelligence which looks at the same area. We also have the
Solicitor General who stands in this House, responsible to
Parliament and to the people of Canada for all of the matters
under his ministry, including CSIS.
Why do we need a fourth or a fifth level of scrutiny or inquiry?
Why do we need a royal commission? This House through its
justice committee in the last Parliament in reviewing the CSIS
act made 117 recommendations. Only two of the 117
recommendations were adopted by the government at that time.
That was regrettable.
Thank heaven for small mercies. Two were adopted. One
which was not accepted by government was the creation of a
committee or subcommittee that would work in this area of
security and intelligence. The government basically said to
Parliament it does not want one. The justice committee said beg
your pardon, excuse us, but there will be one.
All of the parties on the justice committee unanimously
agreed to create the subcommittee on national security. That
particular subcommittee was reborn in this Parliament. That
provides Parliament with a particularly precise window with the
ability to look into this area, the subject of debate today.
One of the reasons we believed the subcommittee was
necessary was that although the Security Intelligence Review
Committee, SIRC, works for Parliament and for Canadians on
their behalf, the linkages between SIRC and Parliament were not
strong. SIRC makes one annual report each year and can make
section 54 reports to the Solicitor General whenever it is deemed
appropriate.
Those section 54 reports do not come directly to Parliament. I
think I am correct in saying the reports do not ever get to
Parliament. The procedures have not been live and green. As a
result there needs to be a better linkage between SIRC and
Parliament.
That is one of the reasons we have created the subcommittee,
to provide that linkage, that relationship, between the oversight
or review mechanism that SIRC is and Parliament with its
general oversight mechanism for all of government.
I want to discuss the issue of potential cost of royal
commissions. I think it was adequately addressed by one or two
colleagues in the House. Some of the more recent royal
commissions have cost between $9 million and $25 million per
item. That is a lot of toast.
From my perspective the existing mechanisms of the statute
of the Solicitor General, of SIRC and the subcommittee are able
to cover the field and adequately address the questions that have
been raised. If I am wrong then someone might be able to make a
case for a royal commission, but at the moment I do not believe I
am wrong. Time will tell. The next year or six months will tell.
We will see how well SIRC, the subcommittee, the justice
committee and members in this House deal with this particular
set of issues.
Let us deal with the justice committee and the subcommittee
on national security. For members here and for Canadians I want
to acknowledge the resources that will be used as an alternative
to a royal commission are already bought and paid for by the
taxpayers. We are adequately resourced. We have research
capability and we have the power to compel attendance. We have
a subcommittee which is working in a relatively non-partisan
fashion and a justice committee which is working in a relatively
non-partisan fashion. I believe that we can do the job that
Parliament has set out for us in the standing orders.
(1515)
As I say, we have the resources. We have the power to compel.
The wording of that power is called the power to call for persons
and papers. That is basically the power to compel attendance and
to require an answer. It is part of the law of Parliament. The law
of Parliament has been here ever since this House was built and
this country was formed. The law of Parliament began
developing back when the barons forced King John, in the
Magna Carta of 1215, to submit to a people's Parliament. They
took some authority from the king. The Bill of Rights of 1689 is
another large slice of authority for Parliament derived from the
king.
We have the power to compel attendance. The power has been
described with some derogation as an absolute power. I will not
get into details on that now but it is an effective power.
6341
We in the House want Canadians to know that we will not
hesitate to use the authority that Canadian citizens have given
us if we need to use them. I can point respectfully to the mace
that sits on the table which is, as a symbol, the repository of
every one of the powers and authorities that Canadians have
given all of us in the House.
What are the allegations that the Official Opposition would
like to see investigated? There are two categories. First is the
allegation that an alleged informant of CSIS had involved
himself in some fashion in intelligence gathering or other with a
CBC journalist, in another instance with some activities of the
Reform Party of Canada, in another instance in an attempt to
obtain an address list of members of the Canadian Jewish
Congress and in another instance, potentially some intelligence
gathering in relation to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Those are four categorized items for which allegations are
being investigated as we speak by the Security Intelligence
Review Committee which has three staff permanently working
on them.
The second issue has to do with security of classified
documents. Essentially put the question is: How did a box of
allegedly classified documents make its way out of a secure
environment and into the basement of a residence somewhere in
Ottawa and on to the pages of a major newspaper? That is a very
reasonable question. That particular question is not one that the
Security Intelligence Review Committee would ordinarily be
able to look at, but it is one that the parliamentary subcommittee
can and will look at.
There are other related questions, hypothetical allegations,
what ifs. Those questions have been asked publicly and the
subcommittee will do its job as will SIRC. The subcommittee
will consult with SIRC as it goes about its job and vice versa. My
colleagues on the subcommittee will inquire into all of these
questions over the next few weeks.
Finally, in my view a royal commission at this point is
absolutely unnecessary, ridiculously expensive and
procedurally redundant in the extreme. I want to assure
members in the House and Canadians that colleagues who are on
the subcommittee will deal with the issues in a responsible way,
in a rational way, in a manner that does not duplicate and waste
resources and in a way that we hope will continue the faith of
Canadians in the way Parliament works and in the way CSIS and
SIRC operate.
(1520)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the cost of a royal
commission of inquiry would be in the order of $9 to $25
million. We are a government striving to limit costs and I
believe that the people have demonstrated, again and again, that
they want better control of spending.
Since a royal commission of inquiry like the one proposed by
the opposition would cost between $9 and $25 million, I am
curious to find out the real cost of the sub-committee chaired by
my colleague, and I would like to know whether this
sub-committee can exercise substantially the same authority as
a royal commission?
[English]
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
On the question of cost, as Canadians know and members
know, every member of Parliament is paid a salary. Each
committee and subcommittee will have a clerk, a researcher and
such other staff as the committee may need but within a budget
that comes from the House of Commons, all of which is
relatively closely controlled these days.
The cost of the members of Parliament, the cost of the offices,
the cost of the office space-we are not going to go out and lease
a floor of an office building somewhere in Ottawa. We already
have committee rooms that will be put to use-are being
absorbed almost exclusively at this point in the existing budgets
of the House of Commons.
In terms of the powers and the mandate of the subcommittee,
or any committee of the House for that matter, those mandates
are primarily set out in the standing orders of the House, but they
are very general. The mandate of the subcommittee in this
instance is more than adequate to cover the subject area that we
are dealing with.
As I stated earlier, the power to compel attendance, the power
to require disclosure are virtually absolute. I will not say they
are absolute because there are very few absolutes left any more
in law and politics. They are virtually and precisely as great or
as small as the members of the House will them to be in their
work, in committee or on the floor of the House.
There is plenty of opportunity, mandate, power and resources
to do the job.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, through
you, I would like to tell the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River that I share his views regarding the
powers of the sub-committee he is chairing and the authority of
Parliament to review all decisions made by government
agencies.
The problem is neither with the Sub-committee on National
Security nor with the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge
River, the problem is with the people who make up the review
committee, SIRC, who, when they appeared before the
sub-committee on September 13, hid behind a particular
interpretation of section 54 of the act when refusing to answer
the questions of members duly elected to this House.
6342
This is the problem, a problem which will last as long as this
Parliament: How to get answers from these people? This is why
a royal commission of inquiry seems appropriate. Looking at
what goes on in the United States before parliamentary
commissions reviewing national agencies, we can probably say
that if American witnesses were to behave the way our
witnesses behaved before the sub-committee, they would be
sent away for a while to think about it.
(1525 )
[English]
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is fair to say that my
colleagues in putting the matter the way he has, makes a point. I
cannot disagree that the Security Intelligence Review
Committee appears to be less than forthcoming when it comes to
the subcommittee's needs.
I hope he will acknowledge that there is a certain amount of
bridge building and educating going on, both with respect to the
goals and powers of the subcommittee.
I would not expect that everybody who comes in the front door
of a committee room is going to know right away the extent of
the powers that committees may have from time to time,
especially in light of the history of this place.
These powers have not been used effectively or clearly over
the last several decades. As a result not only do ordinary
Canadians not realize the under utilization, but in my view
looking in other areas it appears that the courts themselves are
not fully aware of parliamentary law and of the implications of
sections 4 and 5 of the Parliament of Canada Act. It is not their
fault. This is perhaps the fault of Parliament itself, which may
have over the last few decades, maybe the last 50 years or so,
failed to develop in the modern context. This is a challenge for
all of us now. I hope the current exercise will play a part in that
development.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Could the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup tell the Chair whether he his
going to share his time with his colleague? Ten minutes
followed by five minutes for questions and comments?
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Yes,
Mr. Speaker, we will be sharing our time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Fine.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about it, the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service is a good thing per se.
We are not questioning the fact that we need such an agency. The
problem is that somehow CSIS is the offspring of the RCMP. If
the past is any indication of the future, there is trouble ahead.
This is the reason why we want to make sure the agency is
properly monitored.
There are many examples illustrating the fact that with this
kind of agency, it is important to have appropriate safeguards to
differentiate between a security mandate and the mandate to
defend a particular government or party.
In the past, on several occasions, the RCMP interfered with
the democratic activities of political parties, which resulted in
the creation of CSIS. When the membership list of the Parti
Quebecois was stolen in 1973, I was probably on it together with
a number of members of this House. It was totally illegal and
irrelevant.
Following that, CSIS was created, but it seems that history
repeats itself. We now have a critical situation in which a
well-known political party, an opposition party, the Reform
Party, is being spied on and we do not seem to be able to shed
light on the whole thing. This is not due to bad faith on the part
of parliamentarians or the committee members, but rather
because not enough light is being shed.
When we ask for a royal commission, the argument regarding
its costs is no more valid that in the case of the Canadian justice
system. You could say that it would be easier to solve problems
by chopping off people's heads and hands than by bringing them
to court and allowing them to present their defence. You could
easily say that. Similarly, you could say that a royal commission
is not worth it because it costs too much. Some principles are not
a matter of cost and, in all fairness, it has to be mentioned.
(1530)
For example, in the present case, if someone acting for CSIS
has infiltrated the Reform Party and in so doing ultimately
influenced the election results, even if only in a limited way, it is
casting doubt on the very basis of our system and I believe it
warrants a thorough examination. We must ensure there is no
unacceptable situation casting a shadow on our democratic
system.
There is another reason for ensuring that members of
Parliament are able to verify more directly and specifically if
agencies like the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service
abide by their mandate. Let me read a few excerpts from the
agency's 1993 public report. We can see that, sometimes,
members of agencies such as this one share opinions that are
very close to being partisan or akin to a particular vision about
the country's evolution. Those who do not think the same way
are outlawed. They can no longer be full members of society.
For instance, we can read that ``more important is the fact that
the increase in the number of independent power centres in the
world brings forth an increase in the number of potential
threats''. In other words, everything would be fine if there was
only one country in the world and if everyone was alike. It would
be so much easier to administer, but that is not the way it is.
There is a value judgment about a society's future in that kind of
statement. I think that if, on the one hand, an agency like the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service is going to adopt such
6343
an attitude, we, on the other hand, should make sure that a good
eye is kept on it and that changes be made if need be.
There is another excerpt that makes me wonder and, in my
view, argues for monitoring. It says that, while the RCMP is
responsible for enforcing the law, CSIS collects information and
provides operational or tactical advice on individuals, groups or
activities that may constitute threats to the security of Canada to
enable the government and police authorities to act.
It would be important to know what they mean in that kind of
agency by ``groups or activities that can constitute threats to the
security of Canada''. I could be of the personal view that what
constitutes the greatest threat to the security of Canada is the
way the country is run, a view the government would certainly
not share. The agency may consider that such or such political
party constitutes a threat to Canada, as seems to have been the
case. That too is unacceptable.
So, based on the experience of past abuses by the RCMP and
the attempt to remedy the problem by establishing CSIS, one
critical step remains to be taken: we must get to the bottom of
the matter and know everything there is to know about the
agency, its mandate, the way it carries it out and all this
information must be made available to the people in whom the
public has placed its confidence, that is, the elected members of
Parliament.
Some may say that reports are made to the Solicitor General
CSIS activities, but these reports are confidential. We can
understand that certain aspects must remain confidential, that
certain matters must not be debated publicly, but reports could
be submitted in camera to a parliamentary committee
responsible for ensuring that things are done according to the
law and depending on the circumstances.
I will give you examples of reports filed by the SIRC, the
Security Intelligence Review Committee, which are classified
secret or top secret. That is how they are classified. They deal
with security screening on university campuses. It is rather
important to know why this kind of agency is involved in
security screening on campus. Is there another witch hunt on? Is
what happened in the United States 30 or 35 years ago going to
happen here now? What makes one person on campus a threat to
the security of Canada and not another? There may be very
clear-cut cases as well as abuse. We need to make sure
appropriate control is exercised over all this.
(1535)
There is another study whose title in itself is so ambiguous, it
would be worthwhile to look into it. I am talking about the CSIS
regional studies. What do they need regional studies for? Did
they find that the people living in a region where the
unemployment rate reaches 20, 25 per cent are more dangerous
than the residents of a community with an unemployment rate of
10 or 12 per cent? What is in these studies? These are things we
should be able to look into.
There is another document I would like to mention, namely
the review by SIRC of CSIS activities involving Aboriginal
Canadians. Why should Aboriginal Canadians be the subject of
separate investigations? Why are such investigations being
conducted? When they told us the titles of these studies and said
they received studies on this, they suggested that there were
specific reasons for investigating these groups, that is,
university campuses, Aboriginal Canadians and various other
groups, although there is no evidence that the report eventually
submitted contains any accusations. All we know is that there
was an investigation.
It is a little like when someone is accused of something in a
newspaper, only to be acquitted three months later. The acquittal
headline is one inch high while the accusation is announced in
two-inch-high letters but the effect is the same. The decision
has already had a negative effect, which I think is quite
unacceptable.
I would like to give you another quote from the public report
which outlines what we should expect in the future. It says that
in general, the world has become less predictable and the power,
more diffuse. It means that our society is undergoing all kinds of
changes so that the people monitoring them must follow global
developments closely and be able to understand exactly what
they mean.
Without judging the quality of SIRC's current membership, it
can be said that the current situation is rather hard to accept
because some of these people have been appointed on the
recommendation of parties sitting in the House of Commons
during the last Parliament. No Bloc or Reform member was
involved in appointing these people. SIRC members have very
few links with the current Parliament, even with the Liberals,
because most of them were appointed from the Tories' list.
For all these reasons, I think that the government should agree
to the opposition's request so that we can meet the goal set when
CSIS was founded, namely to achieve the most appropriate level
of transparency in the delicate field of security and prevent past
excesses from occurring again in the future, especially now that
Canada faces major political challenges. The democratic debate
must in no way be undermined by institutions exceeding their
mandates.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange that reference is
again made to history being a guide to what will happen in the
future. To be sure, the United States had the McCarthy affair and
the Rosenbergs. France was involved in sinking Greenpeace's
ship, the Rainbow Warrior. We have seen all sorts of abuses in
other countries but nothing like that has happened here.
6344
Certainly, if someone wants to make a comment-and this
is getting to the question which I would like to ask the hon.
member-last night, Bernard Landry was on the CBC talking
about Quebec's delegates general abroad and he wanted to know
if they were true sovereignists. I think he threatened them with
dismissal if they were not.
This is another demonstration of intolerance towards the
opinions of all Quebecers, if their opinions do not suit the party
in power. But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker; at least we set up a
committee of inquiry, a sub-committee, chaired by one of our
own people, but also with members of the Bloc Quebecois and
Reform Party represented, which will shed light on this matter.
Nevertheless, I would like to remind the hon. member that some
of his colleagues in Quebec want to investigate good Quebecers
whom they do not think are true Quebecers.
(1540)
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, what the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine says makes me even more
suspicious, because there is a very big difference between that
and saying publicly: ``We will ensure that appointees conform to
our objective as a government, which the people gave us; our
objective is to make Quebec sovereign and we will give
ourselves the democratic means to achieve this result.''
This is very different from giving a mandate to an agency
whose composition you do not control that will investigate
subjects that you do not know-you do not know what they are
investigating or how they will do it. Between these two ways of
governing, I have just found another reason to make Quebec a
very different country from Canada.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I find these comments very regrettable.
Canada is a tolerant society, but it is not right, now that there has
been a change of government, to point a finger at people who
have served in the Quebec government, who have tried to
promote Quebec's development outside that province and who
have convinced foreign investors to come here. There is a lack
of continuity and, unfortunately, I think all this is beginning to
sound like McCarthyism: you are not true Americans, you are
not real capitalists, etc.
It is unfortunate. This is what makes that argument a
dangerous one. This is the reason why the government seeks to
promote tolerance and welcomes opposition members and
stakeholders to come and voice their concern and views on how
to manage CSIS.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is comparing apples and
oranges. We are talking here about a dramatic situation. We are
not talking, as I said earlier, about people who have been
mandated by the public and who form a proper and transparent
organization.
We are talking about situations such as investigating the CBC,
a national broadcasting network, or Mr. Bristow having
infiltrated the Reform Party. In my opinion, CSIS is an
organization which, in a way, chooses its own clientele. In the
seventies barns and farms had to be set on fire before
investigators were hired to set up the security intelligence
service. Nowadays, they try to influence recognized political
parties, enough to warrant investigation.
There is a true lack of transparency which must be corrected.
Indeed, in a society, it is important to know what is going on,
otherwise perceptions from the past will persist in the future.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to preface my speech by pointing out that a review
committee was set up in 1990 precisely to reform the CSIS Act.
The committee members were astonished to find out about
another organization called the Communications Security
Establishment, commonly known as CSE, and the extent of its
powers.
CSE comes directly under the Department of National
Defence. It is a collateral organization similar to CSIS.
According to the sub-committee's estimates, CSE has a
supposedly secret budget of about $200 million, even though the
House of Commons or any of its committees or sub-committees
has no say in CSE's activities.
As I said, CSE's budget is buried away in the overall budget of
the Department of National Defence so that we cannot come up
with an exact figure. Using estimates, the sub-committee
reckoned at the time that CSE had a budget of about $200
million over which we have no control.
Even worse, the members of this 1990 review committee
reported that even SIRC had no say in CSE's intelligence
activities. In 1990, this committee made 117 specific
recommendations.
(1545)
Since then, only two or three of these recommendations have
been adopted, and by the previous government at that. Why?
Because the committee recommended that the Communications
Security Establishment be formally set up by a piece of
legislation that we could oversee, examine and review.
The committee also wanted SIRC to ensure that CSE's
activities were carried out in accordance with the law and to
report to Parliament.
Why were the members of the 1990 review committee so
concerned, and what exactly is CSE? In an article published last
May, the daily newspaper Le Droit explained a little bit what
could be learned about CSE and I quote: ``The Communications
Security Establishment carries out its activities in total secrecy,
resorting to electronic surveillance to pick up messages from
many areas of the world. This high-tech equipment, which is
worth tens of millions of dollars-and is apparently among the
most sophisticated in the world-can pick up messages to
6345
troops stationed in Siberia or even listen to your own private
telephone conversations with friends overseas.'' All that in the
name of security.
CSE provides intelligence services akin to those of CSIS, but
without reporting to Parliament. Both agencies also signed a
memorandum of understanding on cooperation. The activities
that are carried out in the Chomley Building, in Ottawa, where
hundreds of CSE employees work on nine floors full of top
secret electronic surveillance equipment, are very similar to
those of the CSIS.
The same year, the Ottawa Citizen reported that a device
supposedly allowed CSE to listen to 10,000 telephone
conversations all at the same time and to tape specific ones on
``Iran'' or ``sovereignty'', for example, just by entering these
words in a computer. But it seems we are safe.
Does CSE communicate its intelligence to CSIS? We do not
know. Does CSE violate Canadian laws? We do not know. No
citizen, no member of Parliament and no member of SIRC
knows. Nobody knows. Yet, according to the Solicitor General
and his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, SIRC is supposed to
review intelligence services on behalf of the members of
Parliament who are democratically elected by the people.
How many untold Bristow cases are still to be unveiled inside
CSE? It is difficult to say. One has to wonder if ministers across
the aisle know more about this than Opposition members. We do
not believe they do.
CSE has a staff of 900 civilians and about 1,000 members of
the Canadian Armed Forces. It has facilities everywhere in
Canada: in Ottawa, in the North and in large cities.
I would like to read another excerpt from the article published
in Le Droit which says: ``The work of the CSE is so secret that its
1,000 or so employees are asked never to travel on commercial
flights in case the plane is hijacked or they are taken hostage''.
But there is nothing to worry about, right?
Does the CSE gather information on legitimate political
parties such as the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois? We do
not know. Can a citizen make a formal complaint to a monitoring
agency? The answer is no. Why do we have a charter of rights
and freedoms if CSE employees can, whenever they wish, listen
to our phone conversations without prior judicial authorization
and without ever having to report to a parliamentary body or an
intelligence agency?
In short, the CSE is not monitored by Parliament nor by any
other body. The government does not want to ask SIRC to review
the activities of the CSE. Nobody knows why. And the
Sub-Committee on National Security that everybody on the
government side is raving about cannot get any answers from
members of SIRC and, I will say it again, has no authority over
the CSE.
(1550)
But there is nothing to worry about. Or so we are told.
That is why we need a royal commission of inquiry to explain
to all Canadians and Quebecers as well as to members of this
House how intelligence agencies and secret services are
constantly keeping track of what we say and do.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to hear my hon. colleague's remarks because I am
particularly qualified to answer at least some of them.
I am the author of a book called Best Kept Secret that deals
with the early history of the CSE and brings it up to the present.
It was published last November. The member is welcome to get
it. I regret however it was published only in English, but I would
greatly appreciate it if the member could find me a French
publisher, a Quebec publisher, so it would be available to him in
the language of his choice.
The history of the CSE goes back to the second world war. I
will help the hon. member by giving him some background. It
was part of the allied effort in code and cipher breaking during
the second world war. It began with the examination unit that
was in the house next door to the Prime Minister's residence
during the second world war.
It was engaged in breaking codes and ciphers primarily
Japanese and Vichy French. The breaking of codes and ciphers
was a shared arrangement, both diplomatic, economic and
military during the second world war. The Americans
specialized in Japanese ciphers in particular and the British
specialized in German and Italian. The Canadians were left with
some Japanese and Vichy French.
The reason Canadians got involved-and this is important so
the member will understand the perspective right now-was that
Canada was the best country in the world for picking up radio
signals. It was because of the radio skip phenomenon where the
radio waves bounce in the atmosphere and come down in various
parts of the world at focal points. Canada was excellently
situated to pick up all kinds of messages. That is how we got
involved.
Naturally during the second world war this was a highly secret
endeavour. It went into the post war period. Canada continued to
be involved first as the communications branch under the
National Research Council and subsequently it became the
Communications Security Establishment.
6346
There is no secret about what the Communications Security
Establishment does. If the member would look at my book, I
cite in it a particular presentation before a committee, the name
of which is in my book, by the deputy clerk for security
intelligence, Ward Alcock, a couple of years ago. He explained
that the mandate of the Communications Security
Establishment was to listen in on telecommunications
worldwide, just as do the Americans, the Australians and the
British. The idea was to try to pick up intelligence that may
have a bearing on Canada's political and economic security.
There might be a case where Canada has entered into
international agreements and one party or another is not obeying
those agreements. Am I going on too long, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the member have a
question or a comment?
Mr. Bryden: I am coming to it. I will speed it up. I am sure my
hon. colleague is interested because it is apparently-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest of
respect to all colleagues in the House, the member spoke for 10
minutes and we have 5 minutes for questions or comments.
When I rose for questions or comments there was more than one
member rising. I would like to keep the debate flowing as much
as I possibly can, for and against, so we might have the best
possible debate in the Chamber.
I would ask the member for Hamilton-Wentworth to
conclude his remark or ask the question directly to the member
for Terrebonne.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make it a very quick
question then. I am sorry for the delay.
In a situation where an organization is charged with
monitoring foreign intelligence sources, does the member agree
it is very difficult to bring it before a parliamentary committee
for open examination because of the tremendous political,
social and economic implications of possible leaks of
confidentiality?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I think that, as elected
representatives, we are entitled to know the main organizations
who manage this country and Quebec.
(1555)
The hon. member opposite said: ``We monitor conversations
that can be detrimental to national unity''. Given what we hear
in this House, does that mean they can eavesdrop on
conversations in Quebec? Surely not, but one has to wonder.
Concerning the translation of his book, he could have done
like one of his former colleagues, Senator Hébert, and have it
translated in the Senate. Our only question is: Why should we
have a security intelligence service without any supervision
scanning the airwaves and recording conversations around us?
My hon. colleague wrote a book on secret services. I would
like to know why the 117 recommendations made by the
committee have never been implemented. If there is no secret,
why do we read things like this: ``The CSE headquarters is
located in the south end of Ottawa in a building surrounded by a
high fence topped by barbed wire. The roof is covered with a
myriad of antennas, but the name of the occupant is nowhere to
be seen. If you try to take a picture-and let this be a warning to
Canadians-you will most probably be challenged within
minutes''. But there is nothing secret.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague, the member
for Terrebonne, had to say and it frightens me in a way. We all
know that the SIRC was created following enquiries. I am
talking particularly about the Keable enquiry which was held in
Quebec towards the end of the 1970s. It was sparked by a
unimportant event. A former RCMP officer had been caught
placing a bomb. Somehow this expanded and led us to find out
about very disturbing facts.
The RCMP had set fire to a barn, stolen lists of Parti
Quebecois members, illegally opened mail-a totally
democratic way of doing things after all-placed bombs and
written false press releases in the name of the FLQ. Those events
made us realize the need for a special service, one which would
be totally independent from the RCMP, the Security Intelligence
Review Committee.
Given what we are learning today, given the reasons why the
committee was established, given the fact that it is totally
impossible to know what is happening there, even though we
repeatedly made requests, does the member feel that security is
now better, worse or equivalent to what it was in those days?
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my
colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies. I want to tell him
that I feel less secure, especially when we hear the number one
officer of CSIS say to the committee which is supposed to solve
all the problems: ``I have learned never to say yes or no.''
That is what the number one officer of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service says. He says to the subcommittee which is
supposed to solve all the problems: ``We do not need any royal
commission because we have a subcommittee. I have learned
never to say yes or no.'' The other witnesses appearing before
the subcommittee never want to answer the questions.
6347
Therefore, do I feel secure? No. Do we need a royal inquiry
commission that would be independent instead of a
subcommittee with a majority of Liberals? My answer is yes.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the opposition motion. The motion is to
denounce the government for not appointing a royal commission
to inquire into the ``illegal activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service''.
The hon. member is putting the cart before the horse. Why
would the government wish to mount a royal commission when
there has been no evidence of illegal activities? It is true there
have been allegations of wrongdoing but they are just that,
allegations.
Yet on the strength of unproven allegations the member
wishes the government to mount a royal commission which
would cost the taxpayers of the country hundreds of thousands
of dollars. The hon. member may be prepared to take such
liberties with the public purse, but the government has made it
clear that it is committed to a program of fiscal responsibility.
Fiscal considerations aside, there is a more serious concern
raised by the hon. member's motion. Implicit in the wording of
the motion is the idea that the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service is an organization that is not subject to the authority of
Parliament or to any type oversight mechanism. This motion, by
suggesting such an idea, does a grave disservice to the
reputation of CSIS and to the House which in 1984 put in place
an extensive array of legislative safeguards and oversight
mechanisms to ensure accountability, control and review of
CSIS activities. Operating within this legislative framework,
CSIS has proven itself to be a responsible security intelligence
agency on a professional par with those of other western
democracies.
(1600)
Central to the control and direction of CSIS are the principles
of ministerial control and accountability which are also central
to Canadian parliamentary democracy. The CSIS act ensured
that the minister would have full knowledge and power of
direction over the policies, operations and management of CSIS.
Subsection 6(1) of the CSIS act is unequivocal in its message
that the minister provides direction to the director of the service.
The CSIS act also supplied the minister with the means to
control and guide the service. Ministerial control is to be
distinguished from ministerial accountability. Though they are
sometimes used interchangeably, the terms have distinct
meanings. Control refers to the minister's power of approval,
the minister's ability to set policy and give direction and the
means at the minister's disposal to ensure that decisions are
implemented.
Accountability refers to the minister's obligation to answer
before Parliament and the duty of officials to answer to the
minister. A principal means by which the minister exercises
control over CSIS is through the power of approval. By the
normal rules of government, a minister must be consulted on all
important matters related to the minister's portfolio.
In addition, the CSIS act and ministerial directions issued to
the service require the minister to personally approve a wide
variety of operational activities, particularly sensitive
operations. The CSIS act stipulates that the minister must
personally approve all applications for judicial warrants, all
CSIS arrangements with other federal agencies and
departments, provincial authorities and foreign governments,
and the service's assistance in the coalition of foreign
intelligence in Canada.
The minister also exercises control over the service through
statutory power to establish the policy guidelines for the
service. This is achieved through the issuance of ministerial
directions.
An act of Parliament can construct a legislative framework
but legislation alone cannot provide detailed guidance covering
every aspect of operational activity.
For this there needs to be a policy framework to assist
interpretation and implementation. Legislation governing the
creation of a security intelligence agency has a special need for
such a policy framework if there is to be public confidence in
how the agency operates.
Policy frameworks in support of legislation are normally
achieved in two ways; through the formulation of regulations
and the development of operation guidelines. Neither
mechanism however is entirely satisfactory in the security
intelligence context.
Regulations as public instruments are obviously unsuited for
conveying detailed instructions on how secret operations are to
be conducted. Internal agency rules on the other hand would not
provide a sufficient level of confidence.
A third device was therefore embodied in the legislation in the
form of ministerial direction issued pursuant to subsection 6(2)
of the act. Ministerial direction helps to ensure that the Solicitor
General is the linchpin of the legal and policy framework.
In practice the minister issues all instructions of consequence
in written form regardless of subject. Through the experience of
working with the CSIS act the government now defines direction
pursuant to subsection 6(2) as ``written instructions of a
continuing nature issued at the prerogative of the minister that
relates to policy standards or procedures''.
The strategic work for ministerial direction is clear. Over the
last 10 years a set of ministerial directions has been developed
setting out the Solicitor General's governing principles for the
service and its activities. The directions may be grouped into
seven major categories relating to; arrangements to assist the
director's accountability to the minister; the government's
annual priorities for intelligence on threats to Canada's security,
known as the ``national requirements''; guidance on the
service's statutory duties and functions; guidance on
investigative
6348
methods and techniques; instructions dealing with the service's
corporate management practices; standards for negotiating
co-operative arrangements with domestic and foreign
organizations and, policy and file mismanagement issues,
particularly the service's retention of files inherited from the
RCMP security service.
Currently some 50 ministerial directions are in effect.
Directions are converted by the service into operational
procedures for use directly by CSIS staff. This logical
progression from statute to ministerial direction to operational
procedure provides a manageable and auditable means of
ensuring that the service is fulfilling its duties and functions in
an appropriate manner. I remind all members that SIRC is
copied on all these directives.
There is also great provision in the act for accountability. A
general direction also exists to ensure the director's
accountability to the minister. It describes the roles and
responsibilities of the Solicitor General, the Deputy Solicitor
General and the director and outlines formal reporting
requirements such as the director's obligation to prepare an
annual report. The minister has also established guidelines for
the scope and content of the director's annual report.
Direction on service operational policy in respect of the
service's security intelligence mandate is particularly important
to ministerial control. It ensures that the service's collection,
analysis and reporting activities respond to the government's
annual national requirements for security intelligence and
provides practical guidance in interpreting important
terminology of the CSIS act.
The operational methods also are clearly laid out. A general
direction on the conduct of investigations serves as an umbrella
for other more specific directions providing guidance on
operational methods. It implicitly endorses the five
fundamental principles for controlling investigations espoused
by the McDonald commission. The rule of law must be observed
at all times.
The investigative means used must be proportionate to the
gravity of the threat posed and the probability of its occurrence.
The need to use various investigative techniques must be
weighed against possible damage to civil liberties or the
valuable social institutions.
The more intrusive the technique, the higher the authority
required to approve its use. Except in emergency circumstances,
the least intrusive techniques of information collection must be
used before more intrusive techniques are applied.
A direction on joint operations recognizes that in certain
circumstances Canadian security interests may demand the
active presence in Canada of investigators from foreign
security and intelligence organizations. The principles that are
to guide the service's activities in this field are that Canadian
sovereignty and law are to be fully respected and protected; the
objective and potential product of the co-operation must be of
benefit to Canada and serve Canadian national interests; and
CSIS must exercise effective control of the co-operative
activity.
A direction on foreign investigation provides guidelines
governing the service's foreign investigative activity in relation
to threats to the security of Canada. It stipulates that the
approval of the Solicitor General is required before CSIS may
undertake operational activity abroad.
The direction applies to human source travel, foreign security
intelligence investigations by CSIS officials and service
operational assistance abroad to foreign security and
intelligence organizations.
A direction on domestic liaison provides guidance on the
establishment of arrangements between-
[Editor's Note: The fire alarm having sounded:]
Ms. Minna: Shall I stop, Mr. Speaker, or continue?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will suspend to the
call of the Chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.08 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 4.25 p.m.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
was talking about liaison and co-operation. Direction on
domestic liaison provides guidance on the establishment of
arrangements between the service and other federal or
provincial institutions. A primary example is the ministerial
direction on RCMP-CSIS co-operation.
The principles governing domestic liaison ensure that
arrangements are consistent with the service's mandate and that
they are in place when there is a requirement for access to
information, operational support, information exchange or
organizational consultation.
Similarly a direction on foreign liaison sets out principles to
guide CSIS in the establishment and conduct of liaison with
foreign security and intelligence organizations. The Solicitor
General will issue new directions as necessary to ensure that
Canada has a responsive and responsible security intelligence
agency.
Other cornerstones of the accountability framework
established by the CSIS act of 1984 were the review roles of the
Security Intelligence Review Committee and the Inspector
General of CSIS. SIRC has a mandate to review the propriety of
CSIS activities, with emphasis on the delicate balance between
national security and individual freedoms. Section 38 of the
CSIS act directs SIRC to review generally its performance in the
service of its duties and functions.
6349
This includes reviewing such things as CSIS annual reports
and certificates of the Inspector General, ministerial direction,
CSIS arrangements with domestic and foreign governments and
agencies, section 20 reports on unlawful conduct, and
regulations.
Section 40 of the legislation makes SIRC responsible for
reviewing the service's compliance with the CSIS act, its
regulations and ministerial direction, as well as reviewing CSIS
activities to ensure they do not involve an unreasonable or
unnecessary exercise of powers.
An equally important review function is carried out by the
Inspector General of CSIS. The post of Inspector General is
unique; it has evolved over time in response to practical
experience and ministerial expectations. The basic role of the
Inspector General is to conduct independent internal reviews for
the minister.
The CSIS act identifies three interlocking functions for the
Inspector General: to review the operational activities of the
service, to monitor the service's compliance with its operational
policies and to submit certificates to the minister.
To ensure the Inspector General is able to exercise these
functions effectively, the act stipulates that the Inspector
General is entitled to have access to ``any information under the
control of the service'' that relates to the performance of the
functions of the office and to receive from the service ``such
information, reports and explanations'' as the Inspector General
deems necessary. Under section 31 no information other than
cabinet confidences may be withheld on any grounds.
I have provided this detailed overview to illustrate the
comprehensive type of legislative safeguards and oversight
mechanisms in place to ensure that CSIS operates within its
mandate and within the law at all times. Taken together these
safeguards and oversight mechanisms provide a solid legislative
foundation for CSIS that is in keeping with the best traditions
and principles of a free and democratic nation.
The motion before the House would have us turn our backs on
these traditions and principles and on the years of work and
experience that went into creating a modern and effective
legislative framework to govern Canada's national security
system.
I am sure the hon. member's motion was prompted by concern
for the wellbeing of our national security system. However I
would suggest we wait for the SIRC review and the work of the
standing committee, of which hon. members across the way are
members, before we draw final conclusions.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my hon.
colleague who just gave us a list of the legislative authorities
which would allow us, according to her, to make sure that the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service is a body that we can
control to a certain extent.
She also said that, to some degree, CSIS is accountable to
ministers who are empowered to control its activities.
(1630)
I would like to repeat to my hon. colleague that the RCMP was
also, in fact, a regulated body and accountable to ministers. That
did not prevent it from committing inexplicable criminal
abuses. We now have created a new Canadian Security
Intelligence Service. We put into place legislative measures and
we now pretend that the problem no longer exists. What
difference does my hon. colleague see between the situation that
existed from 1970 to 1980 and the current situation?
[English]
Ms. Minna: Mr. Speaker, it is not exactly the same. I believe
the controls on CSIS currently are much stronger.
The allegations that have been made against CSIS and
discussed in the House, if they were true, and I stress the word if,
I believe there would be cause for us to be concerned and for the
government to take a look at how the issue might be addressed or
what things might need to be changed.
However, we do have a process in place. SIRC does have
authority to investigate all of the activities of CSIS. The
standing committee, as the hon. member said earlier, is also
holding hearings. Some members opposite are members of this
standing committee. They will also be having hearings and
reviewing the reports that SIRC has. They will be meeting in
front of SIRC yet again.
If at the end of that process, when the report from SIRC comes
out and when the standing committee reports to the House on
this issue, at that point if hon. members still have problems or
this government finds that there are major problems we would
be the first to deal with the issue.
I would like the hon. member to at least allow for the process
to go through and for the standing committee of the House,
which is representative of members of this House, to go through
the process rather than engage in a major royal commission
which, as I said earlier, costs a great deal of money as we all
know. Royal commissions do not always wind up when they are
supposed to wind up and they are quite a cumbersome process to
set in place when we already have a process. There is no need to
duplicate that process at this time.
6350
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, the reason
CSIS was formed was due to irregularities in surveillance by
the previous security organization under the control of the
RCMP.
It is well documented that the RCMP broke the laws of
Canada investigating a legitimate political movement in
Quebec. It is also well documented when this illegal behaviour
was revealed the government of the day not only authorized
deep investigation but also formed CSIS so its actions would be
responsible, law-abiding and within the scope of the law.
Now we have independent concern that CSIS may have
encouraged a private citizen to gather information on another
legitimate political movement.
What is the difference between the activity of the former
security service and the alleged illegal activity of CSIS? I do not
see any difference.
On page 48 of the Security Intelligence Review Committee's
annual report it states, under the heading surveillance that SIRC
is concerned about the large amount of information gathered by
CSIS in the course of surveillance operations. On the same page,
under sensitive operations, SIRC also is concerned that CSIS
undertook a sensitive operation when no definite indications
existed that there was actual or potential reason for the
intelligence activity.
On page 47 of the same report SIRC expresses concern about
the targeting of surveillance. It stated on one occasion the reason
for surveillance, and in this case stretched its meaning too far.
(1635 )
SIRC is telling Canadians that CSIS had no real reason to
target or conduct surveillance on its target, but it began and
continued to monitor and observe its target even though SIRC
confirmed it had no legal authority to engage in that behaviour.
SIRC also stated that CSIS used inappropriate or imprecise
reasons based upon section II of the CSIS act to target for
surveillance. SIRC stated that CSIS had difficulty
understanding what was considered an actual threat to the
security of Canada. Yet there is no reference that SIRC ordered
CSIS to better understand and follow the legislation that
governs its operations.
There is another instance in the annual report where SIRC
indicated that CSIS targeted another investigation improperly.
SIRC announced when reviewing the reasons for the
investigation that its investigators said CSIS did not have any
justification to pursue its surveillance. Again SIRC reported
CSIS was running amok, but there is no record of SIRC doing
anything about it.
The act governing CSIS states quite clearly that CSIS must
not have used and cannot use its powers unreasonably or
unnecessarily and must perform its duties and functions
effectively, efficiently and, most of all, legally.
If CSIS paid a private citizen to infiltrate, assist in forming
and spreading a message of supremacy, that clearly illustrates
that CSIS violated the abuse of powers section of the guiding
principles in the CSIS act.
If CSIS allowed this same private citizen to encourage white
supremists to join and infiltrate a legitimate political party, that
is certainly violating the concern about abuse of power.
The Reform Party of Canada is not a group of terrorists. It is
not a group of agents of hostile intelligence services and it is
certainly not a threat to the security of Canada. The Reform
Party, whether this government likes it or not, is the party of
choice for the law-abiding citizens of Canada.
How can this Liberal government expect law-abiding citizens
to continue their respect for the law when a government agency
is accused of blatantly and with disregard for the legitimate
purpose break the law with impunity?
At the very least the government watchdog for illegal activity
by CSIS, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, must
announce to Parliament in no uncertain terms if CSIS allowed its
informant to be a mole in the Reform Party, if CSIS allowed its
informant to encourage white supremists to join the Reform
Party? If this occurred SIRC must make that knowledge known
to the entire public.
If CSIS knew the private citizen was actively involved with
white supremists, becoming active in the Reform Party would
publicly damage the reputation of this legitimate political
movement.
SIRC and CSIS are responsible to Parliament for their actions
and Parliament is responsible to the people of Canada. At the
very least, this Liberal government must tell the people of
Canada whether CSIS allowed a loose cannon to sully a
legitimate political party.
If CSIS was actively involved in initiating a supremist group,
forming a supremist group and funding a supremist group
through the actions of their informant, full disclosure of this
despicable act will not be a threat to Canada's security or to
Canadians.
If CSIS was involved the only threat full disclosure will have
is to the authorities in charge of CSIS.
(1640 )
Considering if the illegal activity was sanctioned by those in
charge, this Liberal government must give a full, detailed and
in-depth disclosure to all parliamentarians and the people of
Canada the reason CSIS considered a legitimate political party,
my party, the Reform Party of Canada, a target for surveillance.
6351
Since this Liberal government refuses to initiate a royal
commission into the possible illegal activities of CSIS we must
consider why this Liberal government is trying to hide behind
secrecy and the CSIS act. All Canadians must consider why the
governing party in the House of Commons refuses to initiate
a thorough investigation of possible illegal activity by a
department of government, displaying a total disregard for the
laws of this land.
A previous government not only investigated illegal activity
by Canada's previous secret service, it disbanded the
organization and formed a new service.
No one is suggesting this Liberal government waste tax
dollars disbanding and organizing a new service. All Canadians
are strongly telling this Liberal government a full investigation,
detailed disclosure and removal of those from CSIS, if any, who
had knowledge of and supported any illegal activities must take
priority over any minor embarrassment that this government
could suffer.
To refuse a full inquiry and detailed disclosure to Parliament
tells Canadians this government condones unnecessary secrecy
and is now abusing the trust given to it by the people of Canada.
This Liberal government may full well claim it does not or did
not have anything to do with the possible illegal activity of CSIS
because it was not in power when this activity occurred.
Refusing to have an investigation into what may have been done
will not satisfy the law-abiding people of Canada.
This Liberal government has everything to lose by not holding
a full inquiry. It will lose the trust of Canadians and as a
governing party that loss of trust can never be regained. That
loss of trust may continue diminishing government in the eyes
of Canadians, and that can never be allowed.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest
to the comments made by the hon. member. I can assure the hon.
member that no one on this side considers the Reform Party a
terrorist organization.
There are all kinds of allegations out there on improprieties
and we have set up a mechanism, SIRC, which was established
10 years ago as he very well knows, to look into those kinds of
allegations.
Furthermore, we have gone one step further. In co-operation
with the opposition benches, Bloc and Reform we have set up a
subcommittee on national security issues. One hon. member
dealing with this subcommittee has done commendable work.
We are looking forward to all the proposals made by the
opposition. We are awaiting reports from SIRC. I believe the
subcommittee is going to pursue its research on these
allegations made against the service.
I want to make sure it is perfectly clear to the opposition
benches that never would this government condone spying on
legitimate political organizations such as the Reform Party and
the Bloc Quebecois.
Since Reform is so concerned about accountability and the
way we spend money and controlling the deficit, does the hon.
member really believe that by spending $20 million to $25
million on a royal commission we would not be better served by
giving the subcommittee on national security issues the time and
the chance to look into this and as well as SIRC to report to us
and Parliament on what happened or what has allegedly
happened? I would like to know if it would be preferable for us
to wait before spending $20 million to $25 million of taxpayers'
money.
(1645)
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his assurances with regard to the feelings of the
Liberals about this particular activity.
I am shocked that anybody from that side of the House would
suggest that spending money is wrong. Good grief, it has not
shown it in any other direction or area. Spending money has
become a very positive, happy thing for this group to do.
I certainly do not believe for a moment that there would be
any reason to think this kind of investigation would call for that
kind of money. I am pleased to see that this committee has been
set up and I hope this government can assure us that once that
committee has finished its investigation the Canadian people,
not the Reform Party, who have a right to know are thoroughly
satisfied that this thing is resolved and if not would it please
assure us that we will get to the bottom of it and that it must
never occur again in this kind of activity.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have a very quick question.
The member mentioned in his speech that a parliamentary
review must be taken which would cost $25 million because
CSIS is accused of breaking the law. The word the hon. member
used was accused.
Does the hon. member not think we should wait until there is
some evidence before we actually launch such an expensive
inquiry rather than going on the basis of an accusation?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not suggest
for a moment that we run hairy-scary into some kind of thing
that is going to cost millions of dollars. I do not think I indicated
that at all.
I did indicate that there is a special group of people put
together called SIRC and I think it has a big responsibility to
report everything that happens and when I suspect for a moment
and when we have reasons to suspect that is not happening, my
question in return would be is this Liberal government going to
make absolutely certain that these people who are on the payroll
6352
are going to be accountable to the Canadians in earning the
bucks that they make. Are they going to do their job or not? Do
we have to go to extremes such as a royal commission?
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that
members on this side of the House are planning to take their
work very seriously and we have countless assurances that
members of the security committee including members on the
opposite benches are going to look through this thoroughly.
I hope, thanks to the questions raised by the hon. member and
his colleagues, that we are going to clarify this thing once and
for all.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
am really pleased to speak to this motion. I think there is always
a place for this kind of debate. I do not feel this motion is
correct. I do feel it is flawed. Nevertheless I think it is always a
topic that we on all sides of this House should look at from time
to time.
Let me address the motion first and foremost. The word used
in the motion is ``illegal''. A royal commission is to be called
because of alleged illegal activities. This appears to rise from
allegations in the press, in the media, this is the way we
understand events, that would suggest that CSIS has been
involved in impropriety that requires an investigation.
I would like to address that because one of the accusations in
the press was that the CBC was being spied on by CSIS. I think it
was that story more than anything else that fueled the reaction
that has led to the debate we have before us and the various
studies that are going on as to CSIS activities.
(1650 )
I would like to comment on the story that was in the Toronto
Star. I have a document here and I wish to show it. It is relevant.
The headline from the Toronto Star states: ``Spy agency kept
watch on CBC''. I believe this was a page one story at the time.
Naturally a headline like that is going to cause a lot of concern
on all sides of the House and with the public at large. When one
examines the actual body of the story that is in question here
about the CBC being spied on by CSIS, one discovers that this
headline is entirely based on one paragraph in the story. That
paragraph reads: ``The source reported attempts by Howard
Goldenthal, a researcher for the Fifth Estate, a CBC program, to
obtain information from the Heritage Front leader Wolfgang
Droege about whether members of the Canadian airborne
regiment in Somalia had any links with racist groups in
Canada.»
It was the Fifth Estate, a CBC program, but it could have just
as easily been a CTV program or it could have been an inquiry
from the press itself. What we really see here is the informant
replying to a legitimate concern that was connected to the
possibility that there was racist infiltration of the Canadian
airborne regiment.
I think we would all agree that it is legitimate for CSIS to want
to examine possibilities such as there may be infiltration of the
Canadian forces by a group that represents racist elements. That
was the tenor and the content of that particular story. However,
the headline was: ``Spy agency kept watch on CBC''. This is the
sort of headline that has probably generated more than anything
else this type of public concern.
At issue there is the whole question that we are pursuing
something, and I mentioned it to the member for Wild Rose,
where a whole debate has been initiated on the basis of
allegations and not evidence. I cite that as an example and there
are other examples in the media that are basically only
allegations that are not supported in any way by fact that we
know.
Before we go to a royal commission I stress to the members
present that we have to go a little further than allegations that
appear in the press.
I would like to go on a bit further. This situation concerns me
greatly. We have story that suggests that CSIS had an agent, an
undercover person, in an organization that may have sometimes
been associated with very right wing activities, and that this
agent may have engaged in activities as part of his cover that
could be construed as right wing or even racist.
What is the difference between this person, if he really did
exist, and a police undercover operation involving a
plainclothes person penetrating a drug ring? Surely we would all
agree that it is perfectly proper for a police agency in an effort to
expose crime, in an effort to ferret out threats to national
security or municipal security, if you will, to have an undercover
agent and we would expect as part of that cover that the agent
would take on the persona of the group he is trying to penetrate.
I will take that a step further. I do not have any background
any more than any other member here about what was actually
occurring. I submit that if this Grant Bristow was an undercover
agent doing a legitimate task for national security and as a result
of the leaks to the press has been disrupted in a project that had
great value to the security of this nation, then I would say
something very unfortunate has occurred.
(1655 )
We should be disparaging of what occurred, not coming down
on CSIS on mere allegations. CSIS, because it is a security
agency and an agency engaged in secret intelligence, does not
have the ability to speak out and simply defend itself without
jeopardizing agents like somebody who may be doing an
undercover operation.
6353
There is another issue here, the whole question of the leak
of the documents that led to the disclosure that CSIS was
engaged in certain undercover operations.
The one involving the Heritage Front I do not know what
damage is involved and I do not know whether it is true.
However, I will draw the House's attention to something
everyone seems to forget. There was a first leaked newspaper
story in connection with this business. That leaked story
resulted in a headline in the Toronto Sun on August 13, 1994,
sometime before the Toronto Star headline that I mentioned, and
it stated: ``CSIS-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Colleagues, there
is a rule which refers to our not being able to use any form of
exhibits in the House. I know that quite often all of us engage in
quoting from materials, including the newsprint, which is
correct in debate, but certainly I would encourage all members
to be mindful of the rule regarding exhibits and not to display
them in an open fashion to the attention of viewers or others in
the House. I would ask the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth to continue his intervention.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected on that. I will
read the headline because it is not relevant to display it: ``CSIS
spied on metro Somalis''. The gist of the story, based on a leaked
document, was that CSIS did have agents engaged in some
undercover work in connection with the Somali community
because it feared that there were some violent elements in this
community that were a threat.
Certainly with the very recent history of the problems in
Somalia, we would all agree that CSIS had legitimate cause for
concern. We would probably also agree that its wanting to get
information from the Somali community in this case was proper.
What is not proper is the fact that this document was leaked
and the story appeared in the newspaper. I do not fault the
newspaper because newspapers must run with the information
they receive. The fault was the fact that a document was put out
that very obviously was designed to or at least would have had
some result in damaging a very legitimate operation on the part
of CSIS.
That brings us to a very important point which is that we
should be deploring in this House the fact that somewhere along
the line the system went awry and that an individual in a trusted
post was able to collect CSIS documents with the apparent
intention of leaking them to the newspapers for whatever
reason. We can only be grateful that the Toronto Star actually
ran a photograph of one of these leaked documents leading to the
person who was leaking them.
I do not want to sound very narrow and rednecked about this,
to use that expression, but I really do hope that the government
does take some very positive steps-and I hope it has the
mechanisms-to prevent civil servants and people in trust from
leaking documents of this nature. We must have orderly
government, be it in connection with the secrets or intelligence
agencies or cabinet confidentiality or whatever. This was a very
serious precedent and we should all be concerned.
I believe I have time to move on to another topic which is the
issue of accountability that has been raised time and time again
and which I believe is the aim of the motion. It is a very
important issue. I have heard the speakers on all sides and heard
the explanation from my own members on the structure that has
been set up to try to make CSIS and the Communications
Security Establishment accountable.
(1700)
In the final analysis, when any agency or any government
department is engaged in secret work, as many are-the
military, for example, certainly is engaged in secret work; it has
to do military testing and that kind of thing-the guarantee of
accountability is the quality of the civil servants and the strength
of democracy.
We can put the legislative controls in place but nothing is
guaranteed because people work of necessity in the shadows.
When we are dealing with foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence we have to work in the shadows. Despite
what has been said I do not really believe that members opposite
think we can expose that to parliamentary committee
examination. It really is impractical. We would lose all our
allies if we did that, at the very least.
It still is a problem. How do we bridge the gap of confidence
in the personnel who are engaged in activities that are not
immediately seen, that are not laid out before you?
The answer ultimately is having a strong democracy and a
strong screening process. The only thing I would add to that, and
it is a pet thing with me, is that I would have a very carefully
documented accountability.
Over and above what we have heard here, the only way we can
control these individuals who must work behind the scenes, is to
require them to put their orders always on paper and have this
paper record preserved in perpetuity. We have to have a control
that will not allow people to destroy records.
I believe when democracy is strong with a strong and
dedicated bureaucracy, the control on the bureaucracy for doing
the right thing when it has to operate in secrecy is to be
answerable to history. When the historian comes along 30 or 40
years later and looks at it and sees that even if the decision was
marginal or borderline or questionable, at least he sees the
bureaucracy operated in good faith. The vast majority of people
in our bureaucracy, certainly in this country, operate in a spirit
of good faith and try their very best. This is an important point to
bear in mind.
6354
I will conclude by talking about the future of CSIS. This also
is at stake in this debate, the fact that the world has changed
radically, as we know, with the collapse of the Soviet Union
and so forth. This has to and must change the face of
counterintelligence.
CSIS is primarily a counterintelligence agency. We must be
very clear on that. New threats are spread across the board. We
now have situations where very small countries can pose very
great threats. We all realize there is a terrific problem now in
keeping controls on plutonium. The great stocks of plutonium
that exist in the former Soviet Union may pop up in any third
world country. I regret to say that the technology for making
small bombs is well known. This is a fundamental threat.
Fundamental again is the threat of biological and chemical
warfare agents, particularly biological warfare agents. These
are the weapons and dangers of very small nations. We have to
have a constant and very alert secret service that examines these
dangers worldwide. We also have to examine these dangers
internally.
We have an open door immigration policy, which I think is
wonderful, but we have to understand that with that open door
immigration policy we are also open to genuine security threats.
It is not just obvious criminals, but the ones that are not obvious,
the ones that may be carrying the torch of hatred from the
animosities of their homelands which they might employ
against other ethnic groups in Canada. We must have a strong
organization to look at that.
(1705)
I have one more thing to say. This pertains to the
Communications Security Establishment, which we alluded to
before. The world is a global village. The threat now goes
beyond just security threats. The threats are also economic and
political. We have to be aware of the fact that Canada is a nation
that relies enormously on trade.
I see the Minister for International Trade is here. He will
agree with me that Canada's future is delicately balanced on our
ability to compete worldwide. Not every country competes
fairly. Some countries are willing to resort to intelligence
gathering in various ways and in other illegal activities, which
may affect our ability to trade honestly and adequately.
The role of our intelligence organizations involves making
sure Canada is always dealt with fairly. We must have a strong
intelligence service that will back us up because the record of
history shows, going back to previous centuries and this century,
that a nation with a strong intelligence service will use it and use
it sometimes, I hate to say, on the weaker. We must be strong in
order to compete.
Finally, if ever there was a reason against separatism, against
the break-up of the country into smaller pieces, it is the expense
of running a comprehensive and professional intelligence
service.
If we separated, the new piece-a separate Quebec-would
have to set up its own intelligence service. It would lose all it has
gained from the very fine intelligence services that we have had
since the second world war. It would be on its own and it would
not have friends. That is a very dangerous situation to be in.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for his comments. I listened to them
carefully. He cautioned members of the House, correctly so, that
we should not condemn CSIS simply based on allegations and
rumours or innuendo.
Yet I have sat in the House and listened to members across the
way label members of the Reform Party as racists and bigots. I
have heard those words spoken in the House. In fact the Deputy
Prime Minister had to recall the fact that she called one of our
members a racist during debate. That is on the record.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
concerning unparliamentary language. I would like to know
if the hon. member has any source or if this is actually
printed in Hansard .
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am not aware of the
allegations or of the exact scenario that has been referred to, but
I will take the time to remind everyone that in the conduct of the
business of this Chamber we should all be respectful of one
another and this institution.
(1710 )
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude that those
kinds of comments we have been subjected to without proof,
without evidence have been done simply for the purpose of
political partisanship.
I would like to ask the member if it is a fact that this Bristow
individual infiltrated the Reform Party in order to discredit it,
who would benefit from that? Why would anyone in CSIS want
to discredit the Reform Party of Canada?
My analysis of this situation is that no one would want to take
the time or energy in order to discredit the Reform Party. But
who would benefit from it if the Reform Party was in fact
discredited? It would be the political parties because we were
vying for support from the Canadian public.
Is it not reasonable that these two bodies, SIRC as well as the
subcommittee, should examine whether the Solicitor General of
the day politicized CSIS in order to do that very thing and
received the benefit that would come if this party was
discredited by those kinds of labels? I would ask my hon.
colleague to comment.
6355
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that the
examination of this issue should go wherever the parliamentary
committee deems it ought to go and call whatever witnesses the
committee thinks appropriate.
I do point out that there is an enormous assumption of
dishonesty here. Is my colleague opposite suggesting that the
previous government was so corrupt, and it would be corruption,
that it actually could politicize CSIS and do what he said?
Otherwise, unless that assumption is made there is no reason, no
motive to believe that this Mr. Bristow did infiltrate the Reform
Party.
I submit that the apparent lack of motive makes it enormously
probable that this did not happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
member who just spoke mentioned the role of CSIS in
connection with our economy and the protection of our patents
here in Canada. I know that several years ago, there were
frequent complaints that Canada was a sitting duck for this kind
of espionage. I think that was one of the roles CSIS had to play.
Since the hon. member appears to be very familiar with the
agency, with CSIS, I want to ask him, since we want an inquiry,
whether this could also be part of the inquiry, in other words,
why Canada is a sitting duck for industrial espionage. We are
told it is terribly easy. People come from all over the world and
apparently have no trouble taking or stealing-I think that is the
word-something on which we have spent a lot of time and
effort.
Since we do a lot of research in this country, why is it so easy
to come and steal the results of our research? Perhaps this should
be included in the inquiry the Bloc Quebecois is calling for, so
we could find out what the problems are and why it is so easy to
get away with that.
(1715)
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I think it was a very good one indeed.
The reason Canada has been perceived in this way-and I
think it is a very serious problem-is that perhaps not enough
money has been invested in CSIS in the past. Perhaps CSIS has
not had the support it deserves. I am aware that there was a major
investment in CSIS just recently. A new CSIS building has just
gone up south of the city here. I think progress is being made.
I do not think a royal commission, if I may say to my
colleague, is the way to go in getting to the root of his particular
concern which I share. I think this should be the subject matter
of the appropriate parliamentary committee.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, in my
speech I used the word if quite often, as did the hon. member
across the way. We have a couple of speeches with a lot of ifs. I
think his if was a little bigger than my if. He was talking about it
being a shame if Mr. Bristow happened to be on the right track of
something and this whole thing interfered with it.
I know what I believe. I do not think there is any doubt about
it. One thing that has been lost in the country is the trust of the
people who sent us here. That trust has been lost in the public.
All we have to do is open our ears and listen to the fears of
people about corruption, suspected corruption or supposed
corruption, for the last 30 years.
So far no one has accused me of it, but I have seen surveys
asking people what is the most popular occupation or who are
the most valuable persons in the country. When we see doctors
and teachers on the list and find politicians underneath lawyers I
think we in the House have something to think about.
I like the assurances of the parliamentary secretary, but I am
afraid assurances like those ones have become nothing more
than political rhetoric for Canadians. They have heard it before.
They probably heard it before that hon. member was born. It has
been going on and on.
What does the member suggest as a basis of the ongoing
studies on what actions SIRC should take when it has obviously
identified some serious problems? What actions does he think
the committee will take if it verifies even some of the
allegations?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member commented on
the public's lack of trust. I submit to him that we do not help the
public's confidence or trust when we engage in major, shall we
say, witch-hunts based on unsubstantiated allegations as in this
case and as occurred many times in case of the previous
Parliament. When the House is drawn into debate and people
make allegations across the floor without proper evidence we
erode the public's trust.
On his other comments, I cannot forecast what a review
committee or the people reviewing the matter ought to do until
they see the evidence. They will make their own decisions.
(1720)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also
rise in support of this motion put forward by my colleague, the
hon. member for Bellechasse, whose riding happens to be next
to mine. I think it would be worthwhile to remind the hon.
members that the motion in question reads as follows:
That this House denounces the government for its refusal to set up a Royal
Commission of inquiry on the alleged illegal activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service.
I listened with interest to the remarks made by previous
speakers and I think that what the opposition is suggesting is not
that all activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
be abolished but rather-and the Bristow affair was the pretext
6356
for introducing this motion-to ensure that the Canadian public,
and particularly the government and the House of Commons, be
as well informed as possible on the activities of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service.
The public has reason to believe that illegal activities have
taken place. During hearings held by the House sub-committee
looking into this matter, our colleague, the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm asked a number of questions which, to tell
the truth, remained unanswered for the most part. That is an
important fact.
I think that the Canadian public, the Canadians taxpayers who
are paying to receive services, are entitled to get as much
information as possible. Often members are asked questions and
if those of us who sit on committees are unable to get the
information required to answer these questions, how are we
expected to adequately inform the public?
This motion is about setting up a royal commission of inquiry
to do everything possible to make sure that, at least the members
of Parliament sitting on the commission, hear all the facts.
Let me tell you about my personal experience as a Quebecer.
It is a fact that we have gone through some rather quiet times,
but I recall an event that many Quebecers of my generation
remember. There was this incident in 1973 when a barn was
burned down and a list of members of the Parti Quebecois,
illegally seized. Quebecers of my generation remember that
incident. The younger people were not around then and cannot
remember, but it has remained in the minds of many Quebecers.
At that time, some measures were taken; then there was the
Keable Commission which was finally able to establish that
some illegal acts had been committed. Of course, not as many
people were convicted as should have been, but the facts were
proven. After that, there was a relatively quiet period.
In spite of all that, in the more recent past-I refer to a certain
affair which I prefer not to name-there was evidence of an
attempt to infiltrate not a political party but the Government of
Quebec.
The Bristow affair is another case that has come to our
attention. Everyone saw it on the news.
(1725)
This was not just an attempt; another political party was
actually infiltrated. This time it was not the Parti Quebecois but
the Reform Party. I find such infiltration unacceptable on purely
``democratic grounds''.
Problems of infiltration by secret agents from foreign
countries were mentioned. That may be, but since the Berlin
Wall fell, I do not think that there is a really big threat from
foreign sources. I listened to my colleague from Longueuil; yes,
a security intelligence service may indeed be necessary, but it
must operate legally, within a legal framework.
The issue here is not the one raised by the member for
Longueuil, but rather illegal activities. Given what such a
security service costs, I think that not only Quebecers but all
Canadians are entitled to answers.
I will mention some questions that could be raised in a royal
commission of inquiry. Has CSIS directly or indirectly obtained
information on Canadian media or political parties since 1989?
We admit that we must not go back too far, but since 1989. Yes or
no? We were unable to obtain that information. Without
necessarily disclosing the information itself. However, if the
answer is yes, it should perhaps be studied by a sub-committee.
There could be some really important things. We should at least
know whether or not information was gathered directly or
indirectly on the Canadian media or on recognized Canadian
political parties. Not small groups from abroad but legally
recognized political parties that are among this country's
democratic institutions.
Could we have an answer on this? That is the kind of question
to which Canadians would like an answer.
Did the Inspector General of CSIS and the Security
Intelligence Review Committee find cases where information
was gathered on the media, unions, political parties and other
legitimate Canadian organizations?
Rightly or wrongly, as a member of Parliament, and before
that as a member of public organizations, people told me
personally on many occasions-that is not hearsay-of their
concerns regarding some individuals then involved in militant
and union activities-I could give examples of CSIS
collaborators infiltrating the CNTU, a major union body in
Quebec. Infiltration may be acceptable but I think that
dynamite, arson and theft warrant investigation.
I have a general question: What is the basis-I would very
much like to know that-and the scope of the contacts which
CSIS has with foreign intelligence services and with the
Communications Security Establishment of the Department of
National Defence? This should not be an official secret. What is
the basis and the scope of the activities of that service? We
should be allowed to know that. Why is it not the case?
Does CSIS receive information from other Canadian or
foreign intelligence services on activities conducted by
Canadians within our borders? If so, is the receipt of such
information by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service legal
under the CSIS Act? Is it legal or not? Bench marks are required.
If such bench marks exist, then they must be known.
6357
(1730)
In the Bristow case, when did CSIS become aware of Mr.
Grant Bristow's participation-this is very important-in
political events held by the Reform Party of Canada? Did CSIS
end its relation with Mr. Bristow at that point?
Regardless of its nature, has information gathered by Mr.
Bristow been used for judicial purposes, in Canada or
elsewhere, since 1989? Yes or no? These questions do not touch
upon official secrets, and they can be answered by a simple yes
or no. We could not find out.
These vague answers, or even the lack of answers, leave
Quebecers and Canadians with an uneasy feeling which may
well undermine their confidence in certain institutions. Yet, we
should reinforce public confidence in those institutions. The
setting up of a royal commission of inquiry, as suggested by the
Official Opposition, is justified since it would hear all those who
can shed some light on certain activities. I am alluding to
presumably illegal incidents. The idea is not to question the
system as a whole but, rather, some specific actions and facts.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I would like again to say to the
opposition that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service does
not cover the legitimate activities of any advocacy or protest
organizations. It does not spy on legitimate organizations like
political parties or unions, as the member opposite claimed.
Again, the opposition keeps harping on about events which
took place over twenty years ago. Since then, we have had the
McDonald Commission which helped to create the civil service
as we know it today as well as SIRC. I also have the feeling that
the opposition tends to remember only what suits its philosophy,
and that is unfortunate.
Last night, as a Quebecer, I was very disappointed by the new
Quebec government, when I heard Bernard Landry himself state
publicly that he would weed out federalists hiding in all the
Delegations General of the province of Quebec and that he was
appointed to find out if they are true sovereignists. Sometimes, I
think the opposition should look at itself and ensure that the
government of Quebec will still respect the great majority of
Quebecers who are federalists and not separatists.
I still want to point out to the hon. member opposite who is
yelling at me that Canada is, after all, a land of open arms, a free
country that first and foremost respects individual freedom. I
think our government has made a commitment to examine in
detail the allegations made against our services and to take
remedial action if needed.
So, I do not see why we should spend $20 million to $25
million on a royal commission of inquiry, when we have not yet
completed our own investigations, mainly through the
Sub-Committee on National Security and the upcoming SIRC
report. However, I want to add that I am deeply disappointed by
the hon. member, who belongs to a separatist party in the
province of Quebec and wants to weed out the federalists, as
suggested by Mr. Landry. I think this is unacceptable in a
democratic society such as ours.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, this is a funny way of getting out of a
predicament. If we were in the military, we would say it was a
good diversion tactic.
(1735)
While talking about shifting the limelight to the National
Assembly and what is going on in the new government in
Quebec, incidentally, before 1976 we had a Liberal government
that had an intelligence gathering services referred to as the
CAD, which the Parti Quebecois government-I realize the hon.
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is too young
to remember that, but this may be useful to other people who are
listening-later removed.
What we are talking about today, however, is the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service. As for shifting the focus to
Quebec- The hon. member's answer is particularly disturbing
since he is saying, more or less, that now the National Assembly
has a new Parti Quebecois government, the separatists are in
power, and the hon. member gets all upset and blurts out this
type of question. The more I hear this ``nervous'' reaction the
more I am convinced we should be concerned about the
activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I must
say that to me, this kind of nervous-Nellie reaction to the new
Parti Quebecois government is all the more reason to support the
motion standing in the name of the hon. member for
Bellechasse.
I would just like to remind this House that the members of the
Bloc Quebecois and the members of the Parti Quebecois were
elected in the same way as the hon. member. I respect the fact
that he was elected to represent another party in my province. I
respect him as an elected representative, elected by constituents
who put their trust in him. However, when he goes on in this
way, he infers that the people of Quebec-and I will not be
unparliamentary-showed poor judgment in electing members
of the Parti Quebecois, and because of that, people should be
wary and feel insecure about this new government, but after all,
like the members of the Reform Party who were elected in
Western Canada by people who used their good judgment, after a
democratic debate, these people were elected to represent them.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my hon. colleague.
Sometimes separatists say that after separation the new
Quebec can still retain a shared currency with the rest of Canada
and even a shared citizenship, which is somewhat contradictory
in my view.
6358
Does the member feel that the new, separate Quebec should
also expect to share CSIS and the Communications Security
Establishment?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, although more calm than his
predecessor, the hon. member nevertheless suggests, when
talking about separatism, that we are wicked people who wish to
inflict hardships on members on the other side, whereas we wish
to remain good neighbours and friends as much as possible.
As regards the question, you will understand that I represent
the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. I am willing
to act as a messenger or an interpreter and to pass on the
question, but I think that it should be answered by an elected
Parti Quebecois government after it has won the referendum.
Therefore, I believe the question is rather premature or that it
should be asked instead during a referendum campaign. Please
understand that as a member of the opposition, I have no precise
mandate to talk in the name of the Government of Quebec. That
could be the kind of service that could be maintained.
I take good note of the member's question and I thank him for
his interest but this is all I can do for the time being. As a
member of the opposition I am more used to asking questions
than to answering them.
(1740)
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the
hon. member that he does not represent all Quebecers, and
neither do we, I admit.
But we have to take into account the commitment of our
government, of this sub-committee, which is to look at this
question in depth. I believe that today's question was to
determine whether or not we needed a parliamentary
commission. This sub-committee includes one member of the
Bloc Quebecois and one member of the Reform Party, and along
with them some of us on this sub-committee want to shed some
light on the allegations against the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service.
I can assure the hon. member that once the reports of the
sub-committee or even the SIRC have been submitted to
Parliament, he will have the opportunity to look at them, and
make enlightened judgments.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be very short, as
requested. It is precisely the lack of clear answers and, in some
cases, the total lack of answers that the member for
Berthier-Montcalm who represented our party on the
committee had to endure, which motivated the opposition.
If, during the summer, the member, acting as our official
representative, had been able to get the answers he was looking
for, obviously this motion would have been very different. In our
view, if the government is willing to change its attitude and
wants to get to the bottom of this, as we do, the only way to
proceed is to call for a royal commission. This is what we
contend.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, in the
interest of time I think I might begin with my conclusion and
then get to the beginning part.
It is my feeling the hon. member's motion is flawed and that it
assumes the veracity of the recent allegations that have come to
light in the media. The allegations have in no way been
substantiated by fact or tested by the accountability of the
system that is already in place in the CSIS act as it exists. The
motion is premature, if not inappropriate at this time.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee has appeared at
the subcommittee of the House and offered assurances that its
review of the matter will be painstaking, thorough and
complete, and I expect nothing but that. The House should
respect that commitment and await the outcome of the
legislative process of review prior to reaching any conclusion on
the matter.
A basic principle of any democratic system should be the
presumption of innocence. Unsubstantiated allegations which
lead people to reach immediate conclusions of guilt fly in the
face of this basic principle. Whether it is an institution or
whether it is an individual, it is the responsibility of all of us to
ensure that due process is followed and that only facts are
entertained in reaching a decision.
To date we have not been apprised of the facts. Nor have we
been allowed due process to be followed. Sensationalism and
innuendo, a lot of it in the House, have no place when we are
dealing with national security issues.
The CSIS act provides Parliament and all Canadians with both
a process and an opportunity to reach factual conclusions.
Regrettably in recent weeks we have seen a frenzy of
unsubstantiated allegations and finger pointing that has
undermined public confidence, about which many members
have spoken today, in an important institution charged with
significant responsibilities in ensuring the public safety of all
Canadians.
Members of the House, the media and all other Canadians
have a responsibility in allowing the effective systems we have
in place to run their course. Our national security ultimately
depends on the public's confidence in the people and the
institutions which are designed to ensure it.
CSIS as part of this regime implicitly depends upon public
co-operation to meet its mandate. It is our responsibility in the
House to ensure that the review regime as prescribed in the CSIS
act is allowed to run its course and address any doubts about our
national security system.
6359
In the meantime members of Parliament should not
encourage the distrust the member for Wild Rose spoke about.
They should follow the process, review the information, and
then if we are unhappy with the outcome the motion might be
in order.
It is important to remember how CSIS got here. In fact many
members have spoken about that.
(1745 )
It has been 10 years since Parliament passed the act which
created the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This was
done following lengthy deliberation and with the full
participation of the then members of Parliament following the
conclusion of the McDonald commission of inquiry into the
activities of the RCMP security service.
This latter inquiry was extensive and exhaustive in addressing
concerns about the activities of the RCMP security service. The
recommendation was clear that the national security interests of
Canada would best be served by a civilian agency. I believe that
the regime and the powers created by Parliament in 1984 by the
enactment of the CSIS act fulfil the requirements of
accountability to the Canadian people because the act itself
fulfils the five basic principles which emerged from the
McDonald commission.
I will remind members of Parliament what those principles
were. The first was the provision of security and intelligence is
essential to the security of Canada. Second, there is an adequate
legal framework within which a security service would
co-operate under the rule of law while recognizing the
democratic rights of all Canadians. The third was an effective
management system to ensure responsible direction and a
respect for the law. The fourth was effective accountability to
ministers who are responsible to Parliament or responsibility
subsequently assigned by Parliament to the Security
Intelligence Review Committee. The fifth principle was
openness to satisfactory external review, ensuring that the
agency does not abuse its power and that it is not misused by
governments.
These principles were adopted by government in the drafting
of the CSIS act and confirmed in Parliament in 1984. In 1989
Parliament met the statutory requirement of the CSIS act by
reviewing the effectiveness of the act and its stated objectives.
It has been some five years since this review and I see no
reason to question the validity of that document produced at the
time. The recent flurry of allegations about CSIS are just that,
allegations. The allegations have not yet been subjected to the
full scrutiny of the review regime outlined in CSIS.
It is worthy to note that the CSIS act is comprised of 29 pages,
half of which are devoted to the control and review mechanisms
applied to CSIS in the performance of its duties and functions.
This fact alone should provide us with initial comfort in
assessing the concerns that have been raised over the last seven
weeks in the media. Each year for the last 10 years the House has
been provided with an annual report from the Security
Intelligence Review Committee. While initially it was critical,
it has in the last few years been much better and much more clear
in its issues because of course CSIS is getting better and better in
its operations.
It is important to remember that here we are in 1994 and there
still are threats to Canadian security. International terrorism
remains a threat to world order. From time to time Canada is a
base for activities in support of terrorism in other countries.
Terrorist acts can have direct impacts on the lives of Canadians.
The guests of Canada can also be the subject of terrorist threats.
We do not want to be subject to violence in this country nor do
we want our reputation as a nation internationally damaged. It is
important to remember that this does exist. The technology of
terrorism is becoming more accessible. The World Trade Centre
bombing confirms that this is so. The sources of terrorism
remain strong: nationalism, religious and political extremism,
state sponsored terrorism, ethnic unrest and regional conflict.
Canadians thankfully in recent years have been spared in large
part from those acts of terror but we live in a world that is
becoming increasingly smaller as a consequence of
globalization. What happens in a distant part of the world can
have an immediate impact in Canada. We are no longer isolated
from what was at one time viewed as a far off regional conflict.
We have responsibilities to assist our allies and protect
ourselves in countering the effects of international security
concerns.
Our borders are long and open and we are part of a global
transportation and communication system. Canadians and
Canadian soil are not immune from security concerns. Terrorism
is not an abstract force sowing its horror in a foreign land.
Canada and Canadians are vulnerable and have been vulnerable
in the past. Canada's evident prosperity and open society make it
sometimes all too inviting a venue.
The CSIS act defines the roles and responsibilities for the
Solicitor General, the deputy Solicitor General and the director
of CSIS.
This regime provides a full measure of checks and balances in
ongoing CSIS operations, particularly those of a most intrusive
nature. Approvals are required from a federal court judge for the
utilization of these most intrusive measures.
This is a clear reflection of the priority and concern that the
public and parliamentarians attach to the potential for abuse of
power by a security service, given the extraordinary means that
it would have at its disposal to intervene in the private lives of
Canadian citizens.
6360
As a member of Parliament, I am very concerned about this.
For these reasons special care, precision and clarity were used
in describing the mandate of CSIS in the act and the role of the
various review bodies in control mechanisms.
The system has evolved over a 10-year period and works
effectively to guard the integrity of CSIS conduct. Certainly the
process we are now in will determine whether that is the case.
In addition to the the Security Intelligence Review
Committee, the Solicitor General also has available the Office
of the Inspector General to ensure CSIS complies with policy,
procedures and ministerial direction. By international standards
this is the most complex control and accountability system in
the world. We should all be proud of that.
This is what Canadians demanded in 1994 and creates the
balance we see in the system today. Let us see the system work.
Then we will have motions like this if they are appropriate and
needed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.50 p.m., it is my
duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order
81(19), debate on the motion is now concluded.
_____________________________________________
6360
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of reaffirming its commitment to seek to achieve the goal of
eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the motion that I
seek approval for today is that the government should consider
the advisability of reaffirming its commitment to seek to
achieve a goal of eliminating child poverty among Canadian
children by the year 2000.
On November 24, 1989 the then member for Oshawa put
forward a motion essentially in the same terms as follows:
``That this House express its concern for the more than one
million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek
to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian
children by the year 2000''.
That motion received unanimous support from this House. All
members present voted in favour of that motion. They voted to
commit this country to eliminating child poverty by the year
2000.
That gave rise to Campaign 2000, a group of organizations
fighting for the implementation of this motion, fighting to
ensure that our most precious resource, the resource which will
provide for our future, receives some attention in Canada today.
As many will know, the number of Canadian children living in
poverty has increased since that time, now amounting to some
1.3 million children. Not only have we not brought a downward
trend in child poverty, but in Canada it has increased.
Canadians who care about children and children themselves
will be watching Parliament's response to this motion. Does this
Parliament care about children as it did in 1989? Does it want to
reduce and move to eliminate poverty among Canadian children,
our greatest resource? Does this Parliament view child poverty
as an emergency situation, which surely it is in Canada today?
Or will it try to turn a blind eye and a cold heart to those 1.3
million poor children in Canada?
At the end of my speech I will seek unanimous consent to
make this motion votable, as it was in 1989, in the anticipation
that this Parliament is as committed as the Parliament in 1989
was to Canadian children. We may believe there are different
ways to eliminate child poverty in Canada. We have different
philosophical and economic perspectives on how to achieve this
most important and laudable goal.
It would be remarkable if anyone in this House would not
support a motion to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
(1755 )
As I said, since 1989 child poverty has worsened in Canada
and I would like to give some indication of how deep and how
serious this matter is by quoting some statistics. I will do that at
some length because I am sure many Canadians are unaware of
how serious this problem is in Canada. They may have a sense of
the numbers involved but I do not think many have a sense of
how deep and how serious this problem is and how important it
is in the long term for Canada because of the economic and
social costs which are incurred as a result of not addressing this
very serious social problem today.
The high school dropout rate for children from poor families
is 2.5 times that for non-poor families; children in families with
incomes in the bottom 20 per cent of the population were twice
as likely to be living in inadequate housing than in families with
incomes in the top 20 per cent, and 1.4 times more likely than
children living in middle income families.
6361
The infant mortality rate is twice as high among families at
the lowest income level as it is among families at the highest
level. Low birth weight is related to poverty as well; it is 1.4
times more common among babies born in the poorest families
than children born in the richest families. Children from low
income families are 1.7 times more likely to have psychiatric
disorders than children from other families and almost twice
as likely to perform poorly in school and twice as likely to
develop a conduct disorder, a behavioural problem.
Teens in low income families are almost twice as likely as
teens in higher income families to smoke and to have alcohol
problems, and 1.5 times more likely to use drugs.
Children who grow up in low income families are less healthy,
have less access to skill building activities, more destructive
habits and behaviour, live more stressful lives and are subject to
more humiliation. In short, they have a less stable, less secure
existence and as a result are likely to be less secure as adults.
It is sometimes thought that people are poor because they do
not work. Yet half those who live below the poverty line in
Canada do work. Half of Canadians who are poor work to earn a
living and still cannot sustain themselves above the poverty
line.
The total number of poor households has grown substantially
over the last two decades. The number of poor families
increased from 700,000 in 1973 to almost one million in 1992, a
jump of 41 per cent. Similarly, the number of poor unattached
individuals grew by 79 per cent. The total number of poor
households in 1992, the last year for which numbers are
available, was 2.36 million, an increase of almost a million
since 1973.
A family is five times more likely to be poor if the head of that
family has not worked during the year. One earner families face
four times the risk faced by two earner families. Twenty-five
per cent of the heads of poor families and 15 per cent of poor
unattached individuals work a full year, but in spite of this they
are still poor.
What distinguishes poor families from other families is on the
whole lower levels of formal education and lower levels of
employment.
Let me say a brief word about aboriginal peoples because it is
there where we find the greatest level of poverty. The incomes of
aboriginal peoples tend to be lower than the incomes of other
Canadians; almost one-half have incomes well below $10,000
compared with one-quarter of other Canadians. Almost
three-quarters of aboriginal peoples have incomes under
$20,000 compared with only 50 per cent of other Canadians. The
proportion of aboriginal people falling below the poverty line is
increasing and is about 20 per cent higher than the Canadian
population at large.
Let me also say a word about persons who are disabled in
Canada because that is another group that is over-represented in
the poverty group. Those with disabilities are 25 per cent more
likely to be poor than Canadians of the same age.
Part of this problem is because income distribution in Canada
is getting worse. The gap between rich and poor is increasing
and is at around 1951 levels. The top 20 per cent of Canadian
households, the richest 20 per cent, receive about nine times the
income of the bottom 20 per cent. That gap is increasing in spite
of some measures taken in the 1970s and 1980s.
(1800)
The number of poor families in the 1980s and 1990s increased
by 18 per cent. One of the most significant increases was among
younger families. We have essentially addressed to a large
measure the problem of poverty among seniors because we
cared that seniors who had provided so much to the country
should be able to live their last years in dignity. We addressed
the problem of poverty among seniors because we had the
political will to do so.
We sometimes hear from the government that more education
is the answer to the problems of poverty that people face or the
inability of people to participate effectively in the marketplace.
Over the last decade it has become clear there is a large increase
of families living in poverty whose heads have post-secondary
degrees. The number of poor families where one or more of the
adults held a post-secondary degree almost doubled in the
decade of the 1980s. Therefore higher education is no guarantee
against poverty but it is clearly an important element of the fight
against poverty.
Unless employment and the income picture improve, the poor
will increasingly represent a larger portion of our population.
We know about the incidence of poverty among single parent
families. We know too that it is increasing.
We also should bear in mind that the poverty gap, the gap
between what people need in order to live at the poverty line and
the money they actually receive from income and from other
government supports is increasing. Indeed the increase in that
gap was almost $3 billion in the decade of the 1990s due largely
to an increase in the number of poor.
The numbers go on and on and they are be depressing enough
for everyone and should be enough to make us feel urgently of
the need to address this important issue.
The numbers of people living in poverty, the numbers of
children living in poverty are growing. The gap between what
they receive in increment and support systems and what they
need in order to survive at a moderate level of dignity is
increasing. The numbers of people working full time and
nonetheless poor are increasing.
Without an effective strategy to deal with this problem
Canadians will continue to suffer with the second highest child
poverty rates in the world. As we all know, only the United
States has a worse child poverty rate than Canada and yet as we
see with the suggestions for social security reform the
government is proposing that we move to a more Americanized
social security network. We need to do something about our tax
system. We need to do something about our economic system so
6362
that there are adequate jobs for those who need them to raise
their families.
It is not a question of people not wanting to work, not being
able to work. It is a question of insufficient jobs to provide
income through the traditional workforce for all who need it.
In making a few suggestions for where we should proceed let
me just say that children who just happen to be born to poor
parents, and after all children do not choose to whom they are
born, if they are unfortunate enough in terms of economic
opportunity and social depravation to be born to poor parents, on
average, they will be born with lower birth weight. They will be
sick more often and when they are sick they will be sicker than
those richer children. They do less well at school. They will be
more likely to drop out of school. They will have more
accidents. They are more likely to be unemployed. When they
are unemployed they are more likely to be unemployed for
longer than children of richer parents. They are more likely to
experience behavioural problems and they will die several years
younger than their richer counterparts. That is the legacy we
present, that we enable to take place, for poor children.
We should be ashamed of what we have done in this country
with regard to children of those who are less well off. It is not the
case that this is the only solution. In particular, if we look at the
northern European countries, Norway, Sweden and Germany,
certainly West Germany before the joining of the two, those
countries had child poverty rates of about 5 per cent. We have
child poverty rates of about 25 per cent, five times as high as
countries who have committed themselves to solving this
problem.
(1805)
The so-called solutions of the past have not worked. Child
poverty and poverty in general have increased while over the
last 20 years federal governments have cut social programs, cut
taxes to the rich and large corporations, built up enormous
deficits and engaged in trade, monetary and fiscal policies
which have sucked jobs out of the Canadian economy. At the
same time little has been done to address the structural problems
of the economy which has led to the second highest child
poverty rates of rich industrialized countries.
As I said, while the U.S. has the worst poverty rates, the
government is setting out this week to further the
Americanization of Canada's social programs, continuing in the
Mulroney tradition.
The only solution to poverty and child poverty, and I want to
stress that, is to make it a matter of national urgency to address
the apparent inability of the Canadian economy to create the
jobs required to enable those four million Canadians who are not
presently part of the paid workforce to find work, four million
Canadians who want to be in the workforce so they can feed their
families.
Further cuts to social programs can only make matters worse
and yet that is what the government intends to do. Training can
only help if there are jobs to do when that training has been
received.
The real problem is not social programs, but unemployment.
As a country that is what we should be focusing on. If the
government had committed the resources both human and in
dollar terms to the job side of the equation that it has instead
committed to social program review, we would be in a much
better position to show hope and opportunity for those 1.3
million children presently living in poverty. They would have a
much better chance of breaking that poverty cycle.
Two further brief points. As a signatory to the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child, Canada recognizes: ``the right of
every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's
physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development''.
Canada by this article is obligated to take and again I quote:
``appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible
for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need
provide material assistance and support programs particularly
with regard to nutrition, health, clothing and housing''.
We have not done that. We have not lived up to our
international responsibilities. As a country we have not lived up
to our responsibilities to our children.
Last I would like to go back to the point I raised at the
beginning. I know all members will regard this matter as a
serious one and one of considerable importance. I believe that
everyone in the House believes that we should work toward
eliminating child poverty and assisting Canadian children and
their future.
I would now ask if there is unanimous consent to make this
motion a votable motion, to recognize the critically important
part that children will play in our future and our critically
important responsibility to children we have today. I would like
to seek unanimous consent to make this motion votable. If that
was available I am sure we could choose a time to do that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
6363
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth)): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to debate this very important motion presented by
the hon. member.
Child poverty is on the minds of many Canadians. We know
from surveys that 91 per cent of Canadians make the reduction
of child poverty a major priority. Considering the enormous
riches we have in the country, there is no excuse whatsoever for
Canada to have so many children living in poverty.
Estimates vary as to the number, but a commonly cited
statistic is 1.25 million children live in low income families.
Clearly this is not acceptable. There are those who believe that
poor children is not an isolated issue, but that poor children
come from poor families, poor parents. It is a complex issue that
we can appreciate only too well.
This is not a simple matter. Child poverty is more than a little
boy or little girl going without adequate nutrition or warm
clothing for school. Yes, it is that. But it is so much more. Child
poverty can stem from family breakdown, or a parent or parents
not having a job, or not having a job that pays a decent wage.
(1810)
What do we need to do? We need to work together with our
partners in the provinces and the non-governmental
organizations to come up with constructive solutions that will
address the underlying cause of child poverty. Let us do it right.
Let us work in a co-operative, constructive way. Let us take the
necessary steps to make a real difference in alleviating the plight
of so many Canadian children.
I extend an open invitation to hon. members and to all of our
partners to contribute their input. That to me is what social
security reform is all about. It is not about whose toes are being
stepped on or how the status quo is going to be affected. No, it is
about finding real solutions for real people and real problems.
Let us explore a broad range of ideas and then zero in on the
most effective measures to prevent children from falling into
poverty in the first place rather than always reacting to the
situation once it is there.
Let me assure you however, Mr. Speaker, that the federal
government is already contributing to the welfare of Canadian
children through a number of initiatives. For example, in
1994-95 under the child tax benefit program we will provide
$1.6 billion to families with incomes below $30,000. Under the
Canada assistance plan the federal government will provide to
the provinces and territories some $1.3 billion for welfare
payments, $315 million for child care and $440 million for child
welfare.
In the red book document the government outlined a
commitment of $720 million over three years to expand the
availability of quality child care. Last February the budget set
aside money for the first two years of this initiative.
We will have to develop a consensus in co-operation with our
provincial partners and parents across the country about how
that money should be spent. Discussions on child care have
already begun with provincial and territorial governments but
invest we must because our investment in children is an
investment in our future.
I am pleased to say that the Department of Human Resources
Development is also working with the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development to improve child care for
First Nations children living on reserves. As a government we
also have the initiative of the head start program that is being
headed up by the Department of Health.
Hon. colleagues know that I have a special empathy and so do
they for aboriginal children and the appalling conditions that
they face daily. I am reminded of a 1990 report by the National
Youth in Care Network. It is estimated that of the more than
303,000 children 17 years of age and under, 51 per cent of status
aboriginals and 27 per cent of the Metis children live in poverty.
It is no wonder that we have tremendous child poverty in
aboriginal communities. On average aboriginal income is about
one-half to one-third less than for other Canadians as a whole.
This is a statistic that has been used quite often in different
efforts to create equity.
Both the unemployment level and the level of illiteracy is
twice that of the Canadian population. Aboriginal students are
only one-half as likely to receive a post-secondary education as
are Canadians generally. There are significantly fewer
aboriginal students who complete high school. In some northern
communities as few as 5 per cent of aboriginal youth complete
grade 12.
This situation which we should be especially ashamed of cries
out for our immediate attention. The Canadian Council on
Social Development reminded us last week that while we focus
on social security reform to make our programs more effective
we need to also look at the labour market and how it can supply
good paying jobs.
Of course, it all ties together. I am sure hon. members will
agree that child poverty is linked to education and employment.
(1815 )
I heard my hon. colleague refer to the fact that there are
educated people, heads of households with degrees, who live in
poverty and their families that live in poverty. We realize as a
government in terms of education and life-long learning that it
is not that they learned something, that they have certain skills
and certain talents, but that their skills are matched to
opportunities.
We have to approach the whole issue of learning with a
difference. Not only will we be challenged with making tougher
choices, but we will also be guiding people to make the right
choices, better choices and smarter choices for their
employment and other opportunities.
6364
In 1993 there was a 17 per cent increase in jobs for students
with post-secondary education. There was no growth for those
with only secondary education. There was a 17 per cent decline
in jobs for students with less than secondary education.
The Canada Council report says that children from poor
families are more than twice as likely to be school dropouts. Let
us face it, the better educated and the better trained a person is
on the whole, the better chance he or she has of landing a well
paying job.
Last spring the Minister of Human Resources Development
and I collaborated with provincial and business partners to
implement an employment and learning strategy for Canadian
youth. The strategy for which we have budgeted $684.5 million
in the current fiscal year is helping our young people in the
difficult transition from school to work. It is addressing barriers
such as high school dropout rates, access to post-secondary
education, lack of work experience and effective job training.
Youth Services Canada is one of the strategic measures aimed
at putting unemployed and out of school young people back to
work. The mission of Youth Services Canada is to strengthen
young people's sense of accomplishment, self-reliance and
self-esteem and to enable young people to gain meaningful
work experience.
I point out that the majority of the program funds will go
directly to youths and that eligible participants will receive
financial assistance to help them pay for day care while they are
working.
As we reform our social security programs the whole
employment and learning strategy will help to ensure that young
people, the future leaders, the future builders of this great
nation, will have every chance to become productive and
self-reliant.
This is the thrust of social security reform. It is a springboard,
not a cushion that robs people of initiative and self-esteem. It is
an effort to reintegrate, to pick people up and to help them to
reintegrate into the mainstream, not to marginalize them and not
to create dependency.
Another aspect right now of the 1.25 million children living in
low income families is that over 40 per cent live in single parent
families headed by women. In the Northwest Territories in 1991
the average income for single parent families was $17,100.
Someone familiar with the politics and the economic
demographics and otherwise of the country will know that the
cost of living in the Northwest Territories has been stated as 30
per cent to 40 per cent higher than that of southern communities.
North of 60 there is a real difference in the cost of living, not to
mention the lack of infrastructure and the lack of opportunities
for employment. There are situations that are quite limiting so
we are definitely at a disadvantage.
We need to do much more to help sole parents, mostly of
course single mothers, by providing more quality affordable
child care services. Helping these sole parents become
self-supporting will go a long way toward alleviating child
poverty.
One example of building self-reliance is a project announced
by the government on September 16 in Rimouski, Quebec. For
27 weeks beginning the middle of next month the government
and its partners in the Rimouski region will give women with no
income access to a training program that will enable them to
enter the labour market by creating their own businesses. This is
an empowering process. These women entrepreneurs have
sound business ideas but they have no income to launch their
businesses. By training them, by enabling them to attain specific
skills, we are helping them to get their businesses off the
ground.
(1820)
Human resources development is supporting the initiative in
Rimouski. Each participant will receive financial assistance in
the form of weekly allowances, which includes child care costs
for those who require them. We know it is very limiting when
individuals are faced with extra hours either to learn or to
perform their duties on the job and are not provided with any
kind of assistance.
Three weeks ago in Winnipeg the government signed an
agreement with the Government of Manitoba to assist 4,000
single parents currently on welfare. It is called ``Taking
Charge''. This five-year project will give single parents access
to a storefront office where they will receive help with needs
ranging from child care training to family support to job
placement.
I conclude by saying that I hope we will not hear complaints
and cynicism that nothing can be done. If we work together we
can do a great deal. There is plenty of optimism among
Canadians. Let us tap into that hope and develop a social
security system to serve Canadians in the 1990s and for decades
to come. Poor people are not poor by choice; they are poor
because of circumstances.
I appeal to all my colleagues to have a heart for the poor
children of Canada. They are not poor by choice; they are the
victims of circumstances. We have to work to alleviate those
circumstances and set the record straight for those people to
have a better future in our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to rise in the House today, as the Official Opposition
critic for training and youth, to support the motion standing in
the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
The motion reads as follows:
6365
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability
of reaffirming its commitment to seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among
Canadian children by the year 2000.
In a country that has already won international recognition for
its quality of life, it may seem strange that it should be necessary
to advise the government to deal with a problem as serious as
that of child poverty. Children are a country's greatest asset, and
it is thanks to them that nations develop and evolve. Thanks to
them, we can look forward to the future.
However, according to a recent study by the Canadian
Institute of Child Health, in 1991 1.2 million children in Canada
were living in poverty, which is 500,000 more than in 1981.
Today, 20 per cent of our children live in poverty in this country.
The hon. member who moved the motion mentioned more
recent figures-1.3 million children-which indicates a trend
and shows that the situation continues to deteriorate.
Forty-two per cent of child deaths before the age of one year
can be attributed to prenatal conditions. The mother's quality of
life before birth is crucial to the life expectancy of the child. The
incidence of learning disabilities and mental health problems
among children from poor families is double that of children in
the rest of the population.
If I may, I shall digress for a moment. I was told recently that
even in the supposedly richer areas, children in increasing
number go to school without breakfast or a nutritious lunch. No
wonder their failure rate is so high and they eventually become
high-school dropouts.
One cannot talk about child poverty without talking about
poor families. As we all know, in the past few years, the average
family income has not kept up with the cost of living.
(1825)
According to the same report on child health I quoted earlier,
in Quebec, in 1993, a single parent earning the minimum wage
had to work 73 hours to have an income equivalent to the
poverty level. In Canada, the same single parent on social
assistance, with one dependant child, would receive 65 per cent
of that. In 1991, 453,200 single parents were women whereas a
mere 83,600 were men. Therefore, we cannot talk about child
poverty without talking about the poverty of mothers, especially
single mothers.
Single families make up 20 per cent of all families, but the
most alarming situation is that of single mothers with children.
Indeed, in Canada, close to 90 per cent of children living with a
single mother live in poverty.
Our young people, and that includes children of course, find
themselves in a situation we had not seen since the Depression,
that is to say that they are in a worse predicament than the
previous generation. They have less opportunities than their
parents had. The report on child health in Canada, which was
published this week, and from which I got my statistics, was
funded mostly by the federal government. I would like to hope
that the federal government reacts quickly and with concrete
measures in the light of this troubling conclusion because it
would be obscene for the government to commission a study and
then to ignore its findings, particularly when it comes to the
health of our children.
As my hon. colleague who introduced the motion indicated,
this is not the first time that the House of Commons looks into
child poverty. On november 24, 1989, at the initiative of the hon.
member representing Oshawa at the time, the House
unanimously passed a resolution similar to the one before us
today, to eliminate poverty among children by the year 2000.
May I digress for a moment to say how disappointed I was
when we did not get unanimous consent to vote on this motion,
while consent was granted in 1989 and all the hon. members
present at the time voted in favour of the motion. That was five
years ago. Things are getting worse instead of getting better.
Why is that? A resolution was passed, but why has the situation
deteriorated? I say that it is because the Conservative
government of the day did nothing to correct the situation and in
the past year, the Liberal government has continued, as we heard
again this week, to consult the people on social program reform,
but this reform will only take effect next year, yet another year
away.
That will make six years since a unanimous resolution was
passed to fight child poverty. However, the Liberal Party at that
time was in favour of the resolution as it voted unanimously for
the motion in 1989. Members then, even some who are ministers
today, said many things which are worth quoting. Even the
member for St. Boniface, whom I see in front of me, spoke in
favour of this motion in 1989.
Mr. Duhamel: I am still in favour of political reform, my
friend!
Mr. Dubé: I will go more quickly, but one quote in particular
attracted my attention because this speech was made by the
present Minister of Human Resources Development. He said
that members should set aside the fine speeches prepared by the
departments and open their eyes and their hearts a little.
(1830)
They should try to face reality and talk about Canada's real
problems. Not one day went by in the House without a minister
or member of the Conservative government talking about the
deficit. That is what they said at the time.
6366
I never heard the then finance minister talk about Canada's
real deficit of one million children living in poverty. That is
where we should be investing. That is the real tragedy. In 10
years these children should be our educators, business people,
politicians and journalists but they will never get that far
because they cannot get a head start. One million children
living in poverty is a tremendous loss. That is the big deficit
we must face. Yet, nothing was done to solve that problem.
In 1989, the current Minister of Human Resources, the same
member who is now a minister, authorized the cut in the UI
program, did not provide more daycare spaces, voiced his
intention to cut social programs to fight the deficit, and did not,
in my opinion, table a real program to create permanent jobs. Let
me give you an example: The Youth Service Corps is a program
designed to give $150 per week to young Canadians. In other
times, it would be nice to create part-time jobs for our young
people, but these are not real jobs.
Such a program maintains duplication in the field of
vocational training and this is costly for everyone. In the
meantime, his colleague, the Minister of Industry, refuses to
allocate funds for the conversion of military and civilian
industries. I raise this issue because we have an industry back
home called MIL Davie, which waited in vain for a year to get an
answer from the Conservative government regarding a simple
ferry, and which has now been waiting for another year to get an
answer from the new Liberal government. If approved, this
project would create at least 700 jobs.
We are poor because of the deficit. We cannot help needy
children since we are poor. In the meantime, there are costs. I am
truly disappointed because the members of this House-some of
whom seem to approve-will not even seize the opportunity to
vote and confirm our commitment to fight child poverty.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to speak to the motion to recommit to eliminating
child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.
What is poverty? The Oxford Dictionary definition is: Being
poor, not having means to procure comforts or necessities of
life, in deficiency, in want.
Distinction must be made between basic financial deficiency
for which there may be economic solutions, and social
deficiency where individuals are deficient in relation to others,
emotionally or otherwise, and the deficiency is more than just
simple finances.
Socially each individual may find themselves poor in some
aspect of their life in relation to others, a situation which can
never be helped. The purpose of government social programs is
not to make people equal in every way.
There is however, potential for government to find solutions
to long term financial hardship by reducing taxes, reducing debt
and reducing spending. It must be clearly understood that there
is a world of difference between poverty, which is a situation
where the basic needs of life are not being met, and the situation
in Canada where we have a portion of population living with low
incomes relative to the majority.
These low income Canadians would be considered well off as
an income group if compared to the citizens of most other
countries in the world. However, because it is more common for
us to compare ourselves to our neighbours to the south rather
than to people in Brazil or Morocco, it is this comparison that
forms the argument for the anti-poverty lobby in Canada.
(1835 )
There is at this time no existing fiscal definition of poverty. In
Canada this is a general measure of low income that is widely
misused by various advocacy groups as poverty line and it is
called the low income cutoff of Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada has publicly and consistently stated that the
low income cutoff is not a measure of poverty. Based on the
premise that any family with an income less than the low income
cutoff is in poverty, the child poverty lobby has falsely
concluded that over 1.2 million children, that is one in five, must
be living in poverty.
Barbara Greene, the chairman of the House subcommittee on
poverty in the 34th Parliament studying the issue, stated that the
goal of eliminating child poverty is impossible to attain because
the low income cutoff measure is a relative measure.
Because the low income cutoff is a relative measure we will
never be able to eliminate poverty if it is defined this way
because we will always have a similar percentage of Canadian
families statistically described as low income.
As an example of how weak a substitute the term ``poverty'' is
for low income consider that 18 per cent of the low income
cutoff population owns their own home mortgage free.
There are some generalizations that can be made from studies
done on low income earners. Low income can be attributed to
youth, unemployed persons, recent immigrants, single parents
and native communities. The first three groups, youth,
unemployed and recent immigrants, will undoubtedly increase
their average earnings over time as their employment
opportunities improve with their skills and experience.
Single parents will clearly be helped by the reversal in family
policy proposed by the Reform Party as family will be promoted
through the tax system and the cycle of welfare dependency will
be broken through the reform of social programs.
6367
Native communities will benefit from Reform's commitment
to abolishing the department of Indian affairs and a move to
full participation in Canadian society.
I have described the confusion and have shown the distinction
between real fiscal poverty and low income in Canada.
Regardless of whether one accepts the premise that real poverty,
meaning lack of food, clothing and shelter, is not a reality in
Canada, we are debating the question of child poverty.
It is possible that some children have faced such desperate
situations through no fault of their own, as a child is a
dependent. As such, a child is not expected to have an income or
provide for its own needs. Canadian law recognizes this fact and
makes provision for this fact in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Section 215 states that everyone is under a legal duty as a parent
to provide necessities of life for a child under the age of 16.
According to Canadian law failing to provide these necessities
is not child poverty, but child abuse and neglect.
Child poverty advocates claim that they just want to help the
hungry children but are there really 1.2 million hungry Canadian
children as the advocates imply? Is there evidence of such a
major crisis? Realistically there are children who are living in
broken families and low income families but this does not mean
that the basic physical needs of these children cannot or are not
being met.
In Canada the generous welfare system already in place is
more than sufficient for parents to meet the basic physical needs
of their children regardless of employment or family status. The
government can never meet all the needs of children. How could
government ever provide love and affection? Government can,
however, provide a non-intrusive economic climate in which
families can grow and prosper.
Reformers believe that the state has no business attempting to
raise the nation's children and that full responsibility for
children must reside with their parent or legal guardian. The
only time the state must intervene is in situations of clear
neglect or abuse. Should parents find themselves in situations in
which it is difficult for them to provide the necessities the
responsibility to do so should remain with the parents. These
parents may in these situations request help, first from relatives,
but failing family support, private social service agencies and
then as a last resort governmental agencies.
There may well be isolated cases of individual suffering on
the part of some children due to neglect or abusive parents just
as there are cases of child sexual abuse, infanticide and child
pornography. This is of great concern to all Canadians.
Reformers believe that the proper enforcement of existing law
and the promotion of family values in society are the most
effective ways to deal with this sort of tragedy.
(1840)
Health researchers and others have correctly pointed out that
statistically there are problems those in low income situations
are more likely to have compared to those of higher incomes:
problems such as greater school dropout rates, more domestic
violence and higher health concerns. It is clear that these
problems do not occur as a result of low income but as a result of
family breakdown, illegitimacy, structural unemployment and a
loosening of societal values.
However the child poverty lobby believes that low income
itself is the problem. Low income or poverty, as they call it, is
not a disease that people catch. It is a situation that is the result
of other factors.
The child poverty lobby has proposed some solutions to the
situation of low income earners. They want more day care, more
welfare and more state intrusion in the lives of families.
However studies by Dr. Doug Allen of Simon Fraser University
show that 80 per cent of low income families do not collect
welfare. Clearly for the large majority of low income families,
more social programs are not the solution.
The Reform Party recognizes that low income is not the
problem itself, but rather one symptom of a much deeper
problem in our society. Broken families, divorce, illegitimacy
and unemployment are many of the factors that lead to low
income status. These problems have quickly increased during
the past 30 years due to intrusive policies of Liberal and
Progressive Conservative governments.
These are the tax policies that discriminate against
stay-at-home parents or discriminate based on family type.
These are welfare programs that provide disincentives for
people to find work and that encourage and sustain illegitimacy.
These are policies that fail to punish crime, especially youth
crime, adequately and a massive debt that has led to structural
unemployment in our economy.
What do we propose as the solution? We believe government
must get out of the day care business. We believe in a tax policy
that does not discriminate based on the type of family one has.
We believe in a non-intrusive system of social programs that
helps the truly needy. We believe in a tax policy that continues to
recognize the costs associated with raising children. We believe
in spending cuts in all areas to deal with the debt and the deficit.
We believe long term tax relief must be achieved so that families
may have more freedom to make their own choices.
Reformers are interested in promoting healthy Canadian
families and in helping the truly needy. We do not believe more
social programs are the solution to society's problems. We do
believe in the promotion of the family as the best possible
solution to the majority of Canada's social dysfunction.
6368
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me tonight to speak on this issue, although a
sad one at the same time.
Child poverty in Canada is a clear indication of the failure of
social programs in a society. I believe very strongly that this is
something that we must as a nation take in hand, and take in hand
very quickly.
Poor children are not poor by themselves. They are poor
because their parents are poor. Child poverty does not make for a
healthy future in our society. Our human deficit will be the
future deficit of this country. I believe that firmly.
We talk about the need for a better educated, skilled labour
force all the time in the House. We talk about the deficiency of
skills in the workforce. We talk about the need to train and
educate. We discuss youth crime and retribution. We talk about
how we must punish these young people and put them in jail and
throw away the key sometimes. We talk about harsh punishment
for young children.
We do not discuss openly and honestly why they are that way.
The horrible blight on Canada is child poverty. It is a shame for
this country to be in that position. We must work to eradicate
this.
Children do not get involved in crime and problems all by
themselves. Society has a hand in helping from the time that
they are born whether it be because they are poor, or whether it
be because they are abused in their homes or what have you.
(1845 )
In my view poverty is not just poverty from the point of view
of not having enough food, shelter or clothing. It is also poverty
of the society and the environment around them. Children are
abused in homes all the time.
It is true, so there is no point in arguing about it, that we do not
have social programs that meet the needs of children. We have
seen mental health programs cut when children who need these
programs are in line-ups across the country. That is
unacceptable. How do we expect them to cope when we are not
providing the support system they require? We do not have a
proper child care program. We must provide one. Parents need
that support. We need to have a comprehensive and supportive
system for parents in this situation to cope.
We heard a member across the way talk about the fact that the
only way to recognize poverty was to look at basic fundamental
deficiencies. He indicated that we were looking a little too high
at poverty and that low income was somehow too high a
threshold. He referred proudly to a former member of the House,
Barbara Greene, who was busy trying to raise the threshold of
poverty so that it could be technically wiped out of the books.
That does not get rid of poverty. The people would still be there.
The children would still be there. They would not disappear. We
can change the jargon. We can change the verbiage. We can
change how we describe it. However they are still there; they do
not disappear.
It is the state's business to worry about the children of the
nation. We have a collective responsibility toward our children.
They are the best resource of the nation to survive as a nation.
We collectively make decisions about iron ore, forestry and all
kinds of things, but when it comes to children the member across
the way talks about the sanctity of the family and not doing
anything. He says that we have no say or no role as a collective
society. We do have a very strong role as a collective society.
Child care is very important. Proper support systems are very
important. Low income is low income. Deficiencies, whether
they be social, physical or whatever, are deficiencies.
Supportive services in social programs are terribly important.
We cannot blame the children. We must accept that raising
children and preparing them to lead the country in the future is a
collective responsibility that cannot be neglected. The member
does not agree.
The UN has said that Canada is the best country in the world to
live in. That is a wonderful thing we can be very proud of, but for
certain individuals, namely children, it is not the best country in
the world to live in. That is something we should be ashamed of
and deal with tout de suite.
If we accomplish anything at all in the country it must be the
eradication of child poverty in all its forms. We must develop a
social support system that is comprehensive and supportive to
children and their families.
I look forward to working with the upcoming social security
review process and working hard with members of the House
and Canadians to develop a system to address the basic needs of
families and children at the very least. I hope all members of the
House will participate in the process and in the end come up with
something can be very proud of.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Under the right to reply, I
recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing for
a maximum of two minutes.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. It is clear there
are some different philosophical concerns in the House. There
are some who see the urgency of dealing with the problem and
there are others who want to talk about philosophical issues
while children stay hungry. It is offensive to me that we are
having a philosophical debate about why children are hungry
when we do not have a commitment to solving the problem of
child hunger.
How can Reform members look in the eyes of hungry kids and
tell them they are not hungry? It is a disgrace to hear people
saying those things. You say it is a question of parental
responsibility. Maybe it is, but what about the hungry kids who
do not have that parental responsibility administered to them?
Are you just going to let them stay hungry because you do not
like the way-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would remind
members to make their interventions through the Chair and I
6369
would ask the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing to
conclude his remarks.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, I apologize if I get angry. I see poor children on a daily
basis in my riding and it is offensive to me that people do not
respond in an adequate way to their plight. They are hungry and
they need help now; they do not need it in 10 years.
We need a commitment to resolving the problems we face.
Children are poor because they are born to poor parents. They do
not choose to be born to poor parents; it just so happens that that
is the way it is.
The hon. member may think it is funny but it is not. The
problem of hunger is serious. He should treat it seriously and not
in the facile way he is doing it.
We need a national commitment to job creation. People are
poor because they do not have jobs, four million of them. We
need real and progressive tax reforms so that Canada will have
the resources to deal with poverty. We need changes to trade and
monetary policy so that we can solve our child poverty
problems. Without a real and determined focus on these real
problems we will not find a real solution.
I think we all know poor children. We all know the pain they
face and the hunger that they face. Surely we need to respond to
them in the most humane and careful way that we can. Children
do not need ideological debate. They need answers. They need
food. They need support. I only wish the Reform Party would
have supported the motion being votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.52 p.m., as
there are no members available for the proceedings on the
adjournment motion, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.52 p.m.)