1984-06-20

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, thinking that the Liberal Party still retains some vestige of collective intelligence, I had so wagered on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) last weekend. However, the death wish was amongst them and they disregarded the one candidate who might have stood them one small chance of success in the next election.
Doomed to failure with a Leader whose first act as the Prime Minister designate was to impose closure on the security Bill, therefore showing his disdain for Canadians and the institution of Parliament, the Liberals struggle manfully on to the oblivion that awaits them at the polls. Now that our friend from the ivory towers of Bay Street corporate law is to give up his lucrative directorships in CPR, Massey-Ferguson, Bechtel, Seagram's, et cetera, let me suggest that after the next election Mr. Turner could always keep body and soul together by selling Glad bags on television.



Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, westerners are proud people of honour who believe that a handshake agreement is a contractual bond. Then the bomb arrived. The true Grit Edmonton mayor who nominated the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) for Leader of the Liberal Party did a 100-yard dash to self-serving safety, right in the middle of round one. Commitment and loyalty were consumed by nervousness. The mayor's Liberal instinct was to seek power with honour if necessary, but not necessarily an honourable power. His was a buddy system that left his friend choking in the water while he climbed into a new self-preservation suit. What may we expect of a person who so openly betrays a friend? Would this person also pretend to oppose wage and price controls, or fool people into believing that we could have cheap
gasoline in spite of world price, or speak with a forked tongue about co-operative federalism?
Apparently winning was more important than honour. In his game the score is irrelevant. The rules, written or otherwise, are there to be broken. All that matters is the glitter of the trophy at the pinnacle of power. When Lawrence was elected mayor of Edmonton, some people thought they might be getting a polished apple for the West; sadly, all we got was Decore.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, concern over the uncertain role of medicine in law enforcement is growing among many Canadian doctors. The focal point of their concern is that government intervention in the practice of medicine is increasing, and the time-honoured concept of doctor-patient confidentiality is in a state of serious erosion. Some of the questions doctors are now asking are: should a physician be required to use his or her clinical skills, or the information gathered, to enforce the laws of the land? To what extent should he or she be allowed to use professional discretion in determining the relevance of the knowledge so acquired?
Doctors generally agree that confidentiality is not for their benefit but for the patient's. If this confidentiality is destroyed, patients will be reluctant to communicate certain intimate facts, and physicians will stop keeping accurate records. The Canadian Medical Association is particularly concerned about pending CSIS legislation which will give an investigator special status, authorizing him to go into a physician's office and obtain information pertaining to matters under investigation. Physicians need to be reassured that access to medical records is a rare requirement in protecting the security of Canada, and that it is to be subjected to a rigorous process of control and review by Ministers of the Crown and the judiciary, along with a Security Intelligence Review Committee.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today a number of students from the Canadian Labour College gathered on Parliament Hill to make a clear statement


that public sector workers should have their political freedom. Over 400,000 public employees across the country are denied their basic political rights. In a democracy the freedom of a citizen to take political action is considered to be a basic right. It should only be removed when persons have proven themselves to be unworthy of that right. In the case of public sector workers, it was removed because the political Parties, their employers, were abusing the power and the system.
In the 1980 federal election all political Parties were asked if they supported the principle that public sector workers should have the same basic rights as other citizens to participate in the political processes of Canada, and, if elected, would their Parties introduce legislation to that effect. All three Parties agreed that the law should be reviewed and revised. In 1979 an all-Party committee said:
Simply because political participation is a right of citizens, we believe that this should be the principle that applies to public servants, only limited in the exceptional cases where any indication of partisan political interests would compromise the reputation of the public service for impartiality or would damage the individual's effectiveness as a public servant.
Only the NDP has kept that promise. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), has at present just such a Bill on the Order Paper, C-248, and I ask all Members to help keep their own Parties-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we may have been a little premature in criticizing the new Liberal Leader so heavily for being briefed. Today's Globe and Mail tells us that it seems the briefings are doing some good. The new Leader has discovered there are two million unemployed in the country, including 800,000 young people. For that we thank the briefings.
The other revealing part of that article is that there seems to be a concern on the part of the new Liberal Leader to have some activity on the employment front prior to the next federal general election. What that tells us is that during those briefings the new Liberal Leader may have discovered where the hidden pot of job creation money is. We have stood in this House and said that the Government opposite has hidden funds which it intends to trot out just prior to an election. Ministers are using the unemployed as pawns in a political game. They do not really care about getting jobs. They do care about getting re-elected. These briefings seem to confirm that fact. There is a difference between beef and baloney, and we know the difference.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, in 1970 the English and Wabigoon River systems in Ontario were declared unsafe due to methyl mercury pollution from the Reed Paper Company's pulp mill at Dryden. These rivers are still closed today. The closing of these rivers destroyed the economic base of two Indian communities. The Indians of White Dog and Grassy Narrows lost their incomes, their employment, their source of food, as well as their dignity. Since then Great Lakes Forest Products bought out the Reed Paper Company after that company agreed to compensate the native community with some SI5 million. To date this has not been done, after 15 years.
In the interest of human dignity and justice, I would urge the Prime Minister-elect to use his new position, and I might add his position as director of CP Limited and CP Investments, which are the major shareholders of Great Lakes Forest Products, to put in a good word and urge this company, of which he is still a small part, to fulfil their promise of compensation to the native population of Grassy Narrows and White Dog.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that Amnesty International has declared that Wilson Ferreira and his son, Juan Raul Ferreira, are detained in custody in the country of Uruguay. This man was the Leader of the opposition Party which is known as the Blancos. He was attempting to return to Uruguay to participate in the election which is scheduled for October. During the 11 years that he has been in exile he has protested against the human rights violations which have taken place in his own country. Members of this House in all three Parties who served on the Latin American sub-committee know about this situation from personal experience. Ferreira has attempted to bring this reality to the whole world.
At this time I call upon the Government of Canada to protest vehemently against what has happened to Mr. Ferreira, a fellow parliamentarian, if it has not done so already. I call upon the Minister of External Affairs to ensure that our embassy in Buenos Aires, which looks after Uruguay, approaches the Government of that country to see that these two people are released immediately from prison.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haiiburton):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post Corporation has of late taken many interesting detours from its only mandate, delivering the mail. It has experimented with selling goods for Consumers Distributing, and has considered selling sports pool tickets. While on its detours it seems to have lost its sense of time and direction.
I received a complaint from a constituent this week which described how it took from May 18 until June 9, 22 days, to deliver a letter from Toronto to Bolsover, Ontario, a distance of 75 miles. Another constituent waited 13 days in May for a cheque to be delivered from Pefferlaw to Markham, a distance which can be travelled in less than an hour. Yet another constituent demanded a trailer be unloaded by Canada Post to see if it contained a christening gown which was long overdue. Sure enough, when the trailer was searched the gown was found, long after the christening.
On behalf of my constituents and all Canadians I urge the Government to allow Canada Post to return to its primary mandated function. It is about time it devoted its time to improving mail service and nothing else.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on Standing Order
21.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has not called Oral Questions. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member.


POLITICAL PARTIES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out that my Tory colleagues to my right missed the point yesterday when they were going on about how the future Prime Minister ought to have resigned his various corporate boardroom directorships, as of course he should have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Thank you. But the real point is that one cannot resign a way of looking at the world, and neither John Turner nor the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) can resign the way they have learned to look at the world and its problems in the boardrooms of the nation. That is what they have to resign if they ever want to be able to lead this country.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but remember that the Hon. Member who just spoke used to be, unhappily, a member of my Party. He has managed to change his view of the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he tell us whether the Leader of the Liberal Party, the future Prime Minister, has resigned, effective immediately, all of the several directorships which bring him into an appearance of conflict of interest? If he has not resigned them immediately, does he intend to resign them immediately?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say for sure what Mr. Turner will do, but we did talk about this matter yesterday. It seemed to me that his inclination was to let his resignation stand as it was.


Charles Joseph Clark: That then brings Mr. Turner into a very clear apparent conflict of interest.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-APPLICATION TO MINISTERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record of the House the conflict of interest guidelines set down by the Prime Minister. There are two principles:
(1)	The onus for preventing real, apparent or foreseeable conflicts of interest rests with the individual;
In this case, Mr. Turner.
(2)	Ministers must perform and appear to perform their official responsibilities and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will conserve and enhance public confidence and trust in government and that will prevent conflicts of interest from arising;
Acceptance of that standard is the price that Ministers must pay for access to confidential documents about the business of the country. Will the Prime Minister explain to us why the standards of a future Prime Minister should be lower than the standards of a serving Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 did lay down guidelines for Ministers. I did not lay them down for Leaders of Parties.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Our great regret and our great fear, of course, is that the new Leader of the Liberal Party will have standards as slack as those of the outgoing Leader of the Liberal Party.


Oral Questions


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO MINISTERIAL EXEMPT STAFF
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in this document containing conflict of interest guidelines there are guidelines that affect exempt staff. I quote:
Each Minister is responsible for designating those exempt staff members to whom the ministerial guidelines apply. At a minimum, they normally should apply to Executive Assistants and Senior Policy Advisers-
We have executive assistants to Ministers and senior policy advisers to Ministers bound by conflict of interest guidelines, but we do not have the man who is going to be the next Prime Minister of Canada bound by those same guidelines. Will the Prime Minister explain to us why there should be a tougher standard for an executive assistant than there is for the future Prime Minister of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that I have no authority over future Prime Ministers. I have no authority over a Leader of the Party. He is preparing the transition. He is doing it with officials in the Privy Council Office, not with exempt staff of my office or any other office. What access he has to confidential material will be under the discretion of the Secretary of the Cabinet, and that is good enough for me.
[And the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources having entered the Chamber, all Members rose in tribute.]


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, before asking my closing supplementary question, let me simply welcome back to his place of honour in the House of Commons le petit gars de Shawinigan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does have control over what confidential documents are made available for the Prime Minister designate. Why will the Prime Minister of Canada not honour his own guidelines and stop the circulation of those confidential documents to Mr. Turner in a situation which amounts to an apparent conflict of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are in the presence of a doubt in the mind of the Hon. Member about the conduct-


Mr. Nielsen:: The Right Honourable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Right Honourable, I stand corrected-of the Secretary of the Cabinet, the highest civil servant in this land, to whom I confided the responsibility of briefing the Prime Minister designate in whatever way he found appropriate. I repeat, as I said in my previous answer, that I have confidence in Mr. Osbaldeston. I have confidence in his judgment. I have confidence in the choice of documents that he will feel necessary to show to Mr. Turner. Second, we are dealing
with a former Member of this House, a former Minister of the Cabinet, a Privy Councillor who is bound for life by his oath of office, and I have confidence also in the honourability of Mr. Turner's conduct as a Privy Councillor.


REPORTED FUND RAISING CAMPAIGN TO MEET TRANSITIONAL EXPENSES
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. The June 10 issue of The Toronto Star reported that fund raisers for John Turner were attempting to raise some $600,000 for so-called transitional expenses of Mr. Turner if he were successful in getting his Party's leadership. These expenses would include moving his family to Ottawa, and other personal expenses. Has the Prime Minister discussed this matter with Mr. Turner, and does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for the Prime Minister designate to be indebted to secret private donors in this way?


Mr. Regan:: Little Lord Fauntleroy is worried.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Hon. Member did not ask if any of these funds came from abroad. We understand that funds came from abroad to help his Leader when he was in transition.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister attempts in a rather cavalier way to dismiss this.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: I want to put the question to the Prime Minister again, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister feel it is appropriate for his successor, the Prime Minister designate, to be receiving some $600,000 from secret private donors, to be used, among other things, for personal expenses? Should he be indebted in this way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member of Parliament for Central Nova-


Gerald Augustine Regan: For the moment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -obviously received funds for his campaign
too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the Hon. Member know that he received no funds in order to help him sell his Montreal house for a reasonable price and come and settle in Ottawa? I don't know, and I don't know about Mr. Turner either. I just presume that both of them are honourable. I wish to hell the people on the other side would treat other Members as honourable too.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It is tough defending Turner, isn't it?


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM-INQUIRY WHETHER GRANTS MADE TO EAST COAST RESOURCES LTD.
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like to congratulate him on his recent conduct and showing. Is the Minister aware that Petro-Canada had 40 per cent of the East Sable field, the Venture gas field off Nova Scotia, that 10 per cent of that field was given to the Nova Scotia Government under the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement, and that 10 per cent of that was given by the Nova Scotia Government through its energy company, to a company called East Coast Resources Ltd.? This was a popular investment among senior Conservatives. It has gone from $15 per share to 80 cents per share. Has any Petroleum Incentive Program money gone to East Coast Energy Ltd., to that company? Has the Government investigated whether any of this money was diverted to the anti-Joe Clark campaign in the recent Tory leadership convention?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Government of Nova Scotia does with its shares in that field. It is entitled under legislation to its share of the back-in. By the way, the Official Opposition opposes that provision officially, but the Government of Nova Scotia wants it badly. What it does with it, if it sells it back to some company, is a decision of the Government of Nova Scotia. I respect its jurisdiction. If it gives a break to some Tories in the province, it might be that it does not have the same standards as we have here.


K. D. MARINE (MARITIMES) LTD.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister this question seriously because we are talking about standards here today as well as a lot of federal money which goes into these projects. Has his Department had cause to look into a company called K. D. Marine (Maritimes) Ltd.? One of its directors, Michael Cogger, recently admitted to doing some political work for that company, anti-Joe Clark work, in 1982. Has the Minister looked into the conduct of the brokerage firm called McLeod Young Weir, as well as Mr. Walter Wolf and some of the allegations he has been making? Could the Minister confirm to the House that no federal PIP grant money has gone into funding this company?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I can see that there might be some problems in the other family. The opposition family is different from the Liberal family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As long as the money has been channelled through this company, through the Tory administration of Mr. Buchanan, according to the Opposition, it is supposed to have
Oral Questions
very high standards. I hope the Leader of the Official Opposition will write to Mr. Buchanan to indicate that he should conduct himself in Nova Scotia with the standards of this Government.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who admitted earlier that the responsibility for whom the Secretary to the Cabinet briefs rests with the Prime Minister himself. Therefore I will ask the Prime Minister the following question. Will he tell the Secretary to the Cabinet that Mr. John Turner has a choice? Mr. John Turner can spend the rest of this month earning the directors' fees he probably needs. In other words, Mr. Turner has a choice-the money or the briefings.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. I will take that as a representation and make sure that Mr. Osbaldeston hears about it.


BASIS FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister this question: if he believes that conflict of interest guidelines mean nothing more than trusting entirely the honour of a member of the Ministry, then why have them at all?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, they are exactly that. They are guidelines. They do repose on trust. They do repose on confidence. That has been my approach to government. I am happy to say that, after these many years in office, I have heard many, many questions and hints about scandals, and I am proud to leave at a time when there has been no real scandal in my time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Transport. Since Monday Canadian and U.S. government officials have been negotiating and trying to reach an agreement on an aviation deal which would expand regional cross-border airline services. Could the Minister tell the House the status of these negotiations and what the implications will be for Mirabel?


Oral Questions

I may add, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is of great interest to all Members from the Mirabel area.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members of the House will know, we have been engaged in developing a number of new initiatives in the area of airline policy designed to provide more choice for consumers. I am pleased to indicate that the discussions with United States officials have reached the stage of agreement in principle for a new local and regional airline service that will provide a number of new opportunities for service between Canadian and American points.
Second, we have been able to negotiate an interesting experimental program for under-utilized airports which will allow more extensive use of Mirabel so that we will be able to provide direct service to a number of American cities and develop that as a starting point for new, low cost, no-frills airlines over a period of time. We have been able to proceed successfully with those conclusions. We have the agreements in principle. I hope by the end of the day we will have a full signing of those agreements. That will provide a larger choice for Canadian and American consumers, and provide for further growth in the airline industry.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It deals with the line of questions which were asked previously with respect to conflict of interest. It is my understanding that the principle the Prime Minister used when he drew up the guidelines in April, 1980, was that any Cabinet Minister accepting responsibility and the acceptance of documents which were confidential in nature had to divest himself at that time of those things which could give the appearance or indeed the fact of a conflict of interest. That appeared to me to be the principle. If that is the principle, does the Prime Minister think that is a principle that should be applied to Prime Ministers and Prime Ministers designate, as well as to Cabinet Ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is an important principle, but there is a more important one. Appearing to be right, and appearing to be truthful, and appearing to be honest, are important, but it is more important to be right than to appear to be right.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister drew up those guidelines, was it in his mind
that the responsibility for those guidelines lay with the Prime Minister, the Ministers, or the head of the Privy Council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was intended to be the one who would look at the application of those guidelines. That is why the questions about ministerial conduct are perfectly justified. However, Mr. Turner is not a Minister. He does not come under the guidelines in a technical sense. As a matter of honour on his part, and perhaps as a matter of honour on the other side, do not try to dredge up another phoney scandal, which is the only kind of scandal I have seen them dredge up in the past 15 years.


RAILWAYS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In answer to a question asked some days ago by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton, the Minister indicated that the matter of whether or not cabooses were to be phased out by CNR and, in turn by the CPR, was one that the Minister perceived as something that would be decided by collective bargaining. Has the Minister had a chance to consider his answer to that question, and will he say today that it is not just a matter for collective bargaining? There is an application before the RTC, something in which the Canadian Transportation Commission will be involved. It is also a matter having to do with larger questions of public policy with regard to technological change, public safety, et cetera. Will the Minister take an interest in the issue and not simply leave it to collective bargaining because, in fact, is it not just left to collective bargaining?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that I have already taken an interest in the issue. I have met with the unions involved and have also had discussions with railway officials about the matter. What I did in my answer to the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton was to point out that, on the question of adjustments that might be occasioned as a result of this, it would be a matter best left to the negotiations between management and labour. Any question concerning the safety or technology aspects of it is before the CTC.
As the Minister to whom the CTC must answer, I am in the position where I may have to deal with an appeal or response, and therefore would not want to make any judgment at this time. That would be stepping beyond my bounds and would not allow the CTC to give full and proper account to the representations made before it. We are certainly taking into very deep and serious consideration that it is a matter of concern to the railways and the railway unions. The actions taken are to follow the normal prescribed procedures and not interfere or intervene in an unnatural way and simply distort the process.


EFFECT OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if I recall the question of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton, it did not have to do with adjustments but with questions of public safety and the question of what was before the CTC. The question of adjustments is a matter that should only come up if and when, and hopefully only if, the decision to phase out the cabooses is actually taken. I would not want to prejudge that question by getting into the question of adjustments.
Will the Minister consider making technological change on the railways a case for technological change in general? Will he consider appointing a special task force, or something of that nature, made up of members of the unions affected, public interest groups and whatever, to look at technological change in the railways and the way in which it can perhaps be used as an example of how technological change should occur, instead of it just happening in a happenstance, ad hoc, and totally management-oriented way as now takes place on the railways?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member that it was about three or four weeks after I was appointed to this position that I wrote to the chairmen of each of the boards of the Crown corporations that come under my jurisdiction. I indicated that I consider major changes affecting communities and workers due to technology or to productivity as a matter of high priority. I asked each of the board of directors of those corporations to address it as a number one priority, to establish a working committee of that board, to work with the respective unions and managemment in their corporations, and to come forward with prescribed answers.
I would further point out that the recent appointment of Alderman Hewes from Edmonton as chairman of the board of CNR, someone who is well known as having a great deal of experience in those kinds of negotiations and having an understanding of the impact of changes between workers and management because of her experience in the City of Edmonton, is further endorsement of our deep concern that, in the area of transportation, we will take the lead in responding to whatever impact new technology brings with it.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister is aware of the problems now facing a company known as Petromont in Montreal. Last year, we applauded the fact that the company was offered a federal subsidy. This year, because of the absence of any energy policy, the company is now in a situation where, it seems, it is about to announce the company is closing down, which would put 500 employees out
Oral Questions
of work. In the circumstances, considering the interest shown by the Minister a year ago, and also since there is a report that seems to offer a solution for the petrochemical industry, could the Minister promise today he will give some urgently needed assistance, and what kind of assistance is the Minister prepared to offer Petromont in order to save 500 jobs in Montreal?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know, of course, that Petromont's largest customer is the Union Carbide plant in Montreal. He has read articles in the paper similar to ones I have read. Union Carbide is giving consideration to closing that plant. Even if we were prepared to provide some money for Petromont tomorrow, that would not solve the problem of finding a market for its products, given the fact that Union Carbide might make this decision.
Second, I want to correct one thing for the Hon. Member. The $25 million we have provided to Petromont was not for one year. It was for two years. That money is still applicable to March, 1985.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER HELP SAVE 500 JOBS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister knows, first, that there has been no reply to the report, which said that only a policy that would make it possible for the petrochemical industry to buy oil at competitive prices could resolve the problem, and second, that if Union Carbide is obliged to close down its branch, it is because the Government did not respond to the recommendations made in the report last February.
The fact remains that the Minister is aware of the risk that this Montreal plant may close down this week. My information sources urged me to ask the Minister if he intends to take action to help this industry survive, as he did for Canadair and de Havilland when these industries were judged to be indispensable. To Quebecers, Petromont is as important as the automotive industry in Ontario which the Minister helped last week, and he is to be congratulated for that. Is the Minister prepared to show the same concern for the Petromont plant, in order to save it? I am saying it again on behalf of the company's 500 workers. I know the vast majority of Members on the other side agree with me and that they hope to have an answer from the Minister as soon as possible.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is for Union Carbide to make a decision whether to close its operations for very sound business reasons. We have had discussions with the SGF shareholders with respect to their business intentions, but if


Presence in Gallery
Union Carbide does decide to shut down, no amount of money we would provide to Petromont would provide a market for its products. We have indicated to several of the companies that if they are willing to present us with sound, viable, economic business plans, we will consider financial assistance with respect to conversion and also, through the IRDR program, provide assistance to downstream companies should they be affected by a closure in the industry.

[Translation)


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who may not have won the leadership of the Liberal Party but who has indeed won the respect and admiration of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Maltais: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition released a so-called agreement on natural resources, signed by his Party with the Premier of Newfoundland. I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he has heard of this agreement? What is, in his view, the value of this agreement and what benefits will accrue to both parties if the agreement should be finalized? What difference is there between the terms of this agreement and those of agreements proposed previously by the present federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it was just a publicity stunt orchestrated by the Leader of the Official Opposition, because this document has absolutely no validity. In fact, if we take a closer look, it is far from comprehensive. In fact, the revenue for the Province of Newfoundland would be less under this agreement than what we ourselves have offered. Furthermore, it is quite possible that some time in the near future, I shall be starting negotiations with the Newfoundland Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Stephen A. Neary. I am sure it would be much easier to obtain an acceptable agreement with Mr. Neary than has been the case with Mr. Peckford.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
Mr. Speaker:: May I call to the attention of the House the presence in our galleries of two distinguished visitors, the Hon.
Ralph Willis, the Australian Minister of Employment and Industrial Relations, and the Hon. Michael Duffy, the Minister of Communications for Australia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning the safety of Canadian Armed Forces personnel in Maritime Command. The Minister must be aware of media reports that claim that the polyester uniforms worn by members of the Canadian navy are dangerous because the material is not heat resistant. The British navy had a bad experience with this material in the Falkland Islands conflict, and chose another fabric to replace the polyester fabric. Is the Minister aware of this problem? What action does he propose to take? Although our navy must use ancient equipment, surely we can supply it with safe clothing.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the conditions described by the Hon. Member. The experience that was gained by the British navy indicated that when it used cloth of a similar composition, with a heavy percentage of polyester, difficulties were created. As a result of that experience we have been looking at a replacement textile, and in fact we have found a replacement textile. In fact-


Some Hon. Members:: Blue!


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, we will now be going to the marketplace with identified specifications in the hope of being able to have those specifications met in the very near future.


REQUEST THAT NEW UNIFORMS BE BLUE
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister to take action very quickly. This fabric can create a very serious problem in a boiler room within a seagoing ship. Now that he is going to change the fabric of the uniforms so that they will be safer, and now that he is going to acquire new materials for new uniforms, may I ask one more thing of the Minister? It would be a simple matter to make those new uniforms blue. Please do.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I get the distinct impression that the hon. gentleman wanted to ask the second question first.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who, I would have thought, would be present today after having draft legislation tabled on Monday, I address my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On Monday the Parliamentary Secretary did table draft legislation on the restructuring of the Pacific fisheries at the same time as the Minister was holding a press conference in Vancouver, outlining a direction for the Pacific fisheries which is much different from the one taken by the legislation that was introduced in the House.
In view of the importance of the fishery to British Columbia fishermen and British Columbia residents in general, and in view of the complexity of this Bill, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Minister and the Government are really serious about introducing legislation now to be dealt with in the last two weeks of the Session, considering how all-encompassing that legislation is to be. Is the Government serious about attacking the problems that have been lingering for the last 21 months since the Pearse report was received?


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary reflects the concern of the Liberal Party for the British Columbia fishing industry and for those communities dependent upon it. I see the Minister has just arrived.


BUY-BACK PROGRAM
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a specific question regarding the legislation that was introduced on Monday. I would like to find out if the Government has made a commitment to deal with the Pacific fishing industry in a constructive way in the last two weeks of this Session.
Will the Minister introduce a specific Bill dealing with the buy-back program which has now been universally accepted in British Columbia because of the need for a reduction in the fleet, for both the preservation of the stocks and for the preservation of the financial viability of the industry? Will the Minister specify the amount of funds that are available and whether or not the banks are to be involved in it, and how the banks will be bailed out? Will he specify how fishermen will be protected from the loss of their homes through a buy-back arrangement, and will he specify whether or not he can say what the fleet mix will be after the buy-back-


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that the Hon. Member might ask one question at a time. The Hon. Minister could then reply.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is committed-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: It should be.


Pierre De Bané: If we could have the co-operation of both opposition Parties-I do not know why Hon. Members seem to be taking this so lightly. The Government is committed to having that legislation passed before the adjournment of this Session. Of course it is ultimately up to members of the Opposition to make up their minds.
Opposition Members did prove their responsibility when they passed so swiftly the Atlantic restructuring Bill. I hope we will be able to expect from opposition Members the same readiness to pass this Bill before the adjournment of the House. If opposition Members are opposed to it, it will obviously not pass and, as the Hon. Member suggested, hundreds and hundreds of fishermen in the West could face very serious economic hardships.
This Bill would achieve several things. First, it would limit the participation of the Department in the management and protection of the resource and would put the management of the fishery back in the hands of the fishermen. Essentially, the Government has accepted the philosophy put forward by the fishermen.
When I was in B.C. two days ago I was very heartened when the members of MAC asked me what they could do to see that the Bill is passed before the adjournment. I told them to phone the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni and the Hon. Member for Vancouver South who hopefully would listen to their representations.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTRODUCE SEPARATE BUY-BACK LEGISLATION
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am asking specifically if the Minister will separate all of the horrendous aspects of that Bill from the provision in it which was specifically requested by the Minister's Advisory Committee and fishermen in British Columbia, whether they be native, sports, or commercial fishermen? Will the Minister do away with the part of that legislation that is nebulous and inept, and deal specifically with a buy-back program which will be useful in management processes and in reducing the financial burden on fishermen? That is what we are prepared to look at right now. We are not prepared to look at the other horrendous aspects of that legislation that give the Minister more than dictatorial power.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked by the distortion which was made by the Hon. Member about what is the philosophy of the Bill. I hope when the Hon. Member is in B.C., or when he talks to his constituents-except, of course, Mr. Jack Nichol who has said that he will do his darndest to prevent the passage of the Bill-that he will listen to the wide spectrum of views. I can assure him that the reaction will be very, very positive.


Oral Questions
To separate the Bill into two sections and to pass only the buy-back provision would be most irresponsible. I would remind the Hon. Member that this will be the third buy-back in 12 years. I believe the people of this country expect that those who want to get out should be helped a last time in order that they can get out with dignity. The people also expect a system to be established which would prevent any re-occurrence of the fantastic over-capacity which is the most extreme case of over-capacity in the world.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question which was asked by the Hon. Member for Joliette, and is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Unfortunately the Hon. Member for Joliette left the impression that there was only one recommendation flowing from the petrochemical task force. In point of fact there were 19 or 20 recommendations. I know meetings have been held by the Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with the officials. Is the Minister now in a position to tell us when he anticipates a response to the petrochemical task force report?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are contacting the provincial Ministers who have participated in the discussions with respect to the task force. Over the next 24 hours we will be meeting with the co-chairmen of the task force. I would hope that by the end of this week, or by the first of next week, we will announce the Government's response to the petrochemical task force.


POSSIBLE UNITED STATES ACTION TO CURTAIL STEEL IMPORTS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister for International Trade regarding the ruling which was made by the International Trade Commission in the United States. That ruling was made under the safeguard of GATT. It could well affect some $700 million worth of Canadian steel exports to the United States. Could the Minister inform the House and the workers employed in that industry what action his Government has taken to protect that large amount of export, as well as the thousands of jobs which are in jeopardy as a result of the ruling by the International Trade Commission?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to inform the Hon. Member of some of the things which we are doing. First, our opposition to such action by the United States has been made known by the
Deputy Prime Minister to Secretary of State Shultz. I have made it quite clear to the United States Secretary of Trade, Mr. Brock, on several occasions during the time that this investigation, under the petition, was proceeding. We are now in the process, both at the ministerial level and through the Canadian Embassy in Washington, of making it quite clear to the Americans that they have existing mechanisms for pinpointing the transgressors who may be creating the problem to the extent that it exists, and that they are not required to take this universal type of action.
What has happened thus far under their law is that a quasi-judicial investigation is under way which cannot be turned off by the U.S. Government. The American administration cannot stop the investigation. The only point at which the Government of the United States becomes involved is after July 24, when the USITC reports to the President. At that point our Government will deal with the American administration. Actually, we are dealing with them in advance. On Monday I am meeting with representatives from the Canadian steel industry to ensure that efforts are co-ordinated between industry and Government. I am also keeping the provinces informed.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE-CANADIAN OPTION
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It is all very well to express knowledge and concern about the ability of the American administration and the way in which the investigation must be continued. However, the Minister knows full well that under Article 19 of GATT when imports are restricted and a country is harmed-such as Canada will be-that Canada has the ability to retaliate if our markets are restricted in the United States. Has the Minister informed the United States administration that that is the exact action which Canada will take, that of retaliation, if Canada's imports are restricted to the United States?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Hon. Member that he leave it to me to deal with the Americans, with a feeling of confidence on his part that I will take the steps which are most appropriate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member, in achieving that feeling of confidence, will recall that when the Americans took such a step in relation to specialty steel, our Government retaliated. At that time Secretary Brock stated that that was a very important message for the American industry.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Give it to them again.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is all very well to give it to them again, but I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member that there is a balance and that it is really not wise for a country our size to get into a trade war with the United States. The American administration has shown repeatedly that it is supportive of


trade liberalization and resists protectionist actions. I have a certain confidence that it will continue to do that.
At the same time, I think the Americans know me and I think they know that if it is necessary to get the message across more forcefully, I will do that.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Recognizing that the West Coast salmon fleet is worth some $2 billion, will the Minister confirm that his $100 million buy-back proposal will do no better than eliminate 5 per cent of the fishing capacity in the West Coast salmon fleet? Will he also confirm that, after the next election, a Liberal Government would propose to tax West Coast fishermen by way of a royalty, amounting to 10 cents-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked the first part of his question. It seems to me that the second part of his question, which relates to what might happen after an election, and another Government, is hardly a ministerial responsibilitiy of the present Minister.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Hon. Member that during the hearings of the Pearse Commission, the Royal Commission on the Pacific Fishery, if there was one item on which every single group agreed, and on which there was total unanimity, it was that they favoured a royalty system to finance the operation.
The Hon. Member said that that fleet was worth $2 billion. I think that he is a shrewd enough businessman to know that the only value which one can put on any equipment or fishing gear is related to the income which can be generated with that gear.
As the Hon. Member may know, the value of those licences three years ago was $600 million. Now the value is $300 million. The projected loss for this summer for fishermen is over $70 million. I beg the Hon. Member to hear what those fishermen are asking: to allow those who want to get out to get out with dignity, to prevent personal bankruptcy, and to prevent the loss of family residences. Those who remain want a regime to be established which would bring stability to that sector.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It has been seven years since the Parliamentary Sub-committee
Petitions
on Penitentiary Reform recommended that there be implementation of early retirement provisions for correctional officers because of the nature of their work and the stressful circumstances under which they work. On May 22 the Minister responded to a question which I asked in committee. He said that legislation to implement this provision would be introduced in the House early in June. Where is that legislation? Also, could he tell us where is the report of the Vantour Committee, the inquiry into violence in the penitentiaries, which was promised for the first of June and has not yet been made public?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to early retirement, I can inform the Hon. Member that the Bill is now before Cabinet. Although we have only a week and a half left until the end of this session, I will do my best to get some progress on this issue.
As for the Vantour Report, I have received it but it is in English only. I have asked my Deputy Minister to have it translated as soon as possible, and I am expecting the translation any day now. I shall release the report as soon as I can.


MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' SERVICES
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table a letter dated June 14, 1984, addressed to the Speaker of the House of Commons from the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, concerning the future accommodation needs of Members of the House of Commons. I call this to the attention of every Hon. Member of this House.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 19, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), by filing with the Clerk of the House on Tuesday, June 19, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Point of Order-Mr. Deans POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wished to be recognized on a point of order at this stage.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to put before you, very briefly, a concern I have over the proceedings which took place last evening. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would review those proceedings and, at the very least, guarantee that what occurred last night will not be used as a precedent. On page 4841 of Hansard of last evening, the following appears:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Motion No. 61 is proposed by the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan). Will another Hon. Member move it in his absence?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: No.
Motion No. 62 stands in the name of Mr. Fraser who is also absent from the House. Mr. Ellis is prepared to move the motion if there is unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker then went on to move Mr. Fraser's motion. Proceedings continued for some time and on page 4842 of Hansard there appears, at the bottom of the page, the following:


Mr. Joyal:: Mr. Speaker, when you called the various motions, there was one numbered 60 in the name of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).


An Hon. Member:: No. 61.


Serge Joyal: I am sorry, No. 61. With your permission, I should put it to the House so that it may be debated and voted on eventually.
The only question I have, Mr. Speaker, is this. When the motion was originally put to the House by the Acting Speaker, there was no one prepared to move it. The Acting Speaker then went on to the next motion. I would ask you to consider for the purposes of the future-I do not ask that anything be done about yesterday-that we have a clear understanding that if a motion is put to the House and that motion is not moved, and a subsequent motion is then placed before the House, notwithstanding the fact that it all appears in one grouping, the very fact that the motion is not moved is an action of the House itself. When the request is made by the Speaker for the mover of a motion, if there is no mover of the motion, if there is no alternative mover, and if there is no request for unanimous request to move the motion, then that motion has been dealt with.
From that point on, that motion cannot come before the House again except by way of unanimous consent. I make that point and ask you to consider it, Sir, in order that we might not have either a repeat of last evening or, for that matter, that this particular dealing could not be considered a precedent in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's observations carry a great deal of weight with the Chair. The Hon. Member prefaced his statement by stating he was not challenging a
ruling of the Chair. However, he is calling attention to a practice which certainly is one which Hon. Members should have to think about. There is no question that Hon. Members should be alert. The fact that a number of clauses are grouped for debate by no means excuses the responsibility for proper moving of the motions at the proper time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth, seventh, and eighth reports of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in both official languages, to which, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
[Editor's note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I am tabling herewith in both official languages the response of the Government of Canada to Equality Now, the report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the Status of Women, I rise in accordance with Standing Order 46(2) to lay upon the Table of the House two copies in both official languages of the Federal-Provincial Territorial Report on Wife Battering to the meeting of Ministers responsible for the Status of Women.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition of the undersigned members of the Kababayan Community Centre and the Chinese Interpreter and Information Services Agency in the constituency of Parkdale-High Park, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, and humbly sheweth that the undersigned citizens strongly support recommendations 2, 3 and 6 of the Report of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, supporting the concept of continued funding of community efforts which assist visible minorities and immigrants to become self-sufficient participants in the economic and social life of Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from several hundred constituents of mine.
To the Hon. the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted rights thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Hon. House will therefore provide a remedy. The petition was drawn up by the Comite Estrien pour l'Amerique Centrale, an umbrella organization for a number of organizations such as the Carrefour de Solidarity Internationale, the Service d'Entraide Internationale, and Developpement et Paix de Sherbrooke.
Briefly, the petition expresses the desire:
First, that the Canadian Government urge the United States to recall all its troops and advisers from the territory of Central America.
Second, that the Canadian Government accept the hand of friendship offered by the Government of Nicaragua and as of now maintain privileged diplomatic relations by opening an embassy in Managua.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider the two aforementioned requests made by the Comite Estrien pour l'Amerique Centrale. And as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the broadcasters of my riding who are requesting a public hearing on the issue of cable distribution of distant Canadian radio and television signals. It is pointed out in the petition that additional competition in the form of distant radio signals will weigh heavily against a viable future for the industry all across Canada by further reducing interest in local services and that the introduction of more outside stations will increase fragmentation and, at the same time, decrease the penetration of the local stations which would tend to move in the direction of reducing interest in the station serving the area with local programming.
Committee Reports
It is the hope of the petitioners that representation will be made by the Government to the CRTC to oppose any action being taken to further any move by the CRTC in this direction.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I have 236 petitioners from the areas of Swan River, Durban, Brandon, Minitonas, Kenville and Benito who ask that the Criminal Code be changed to ensure that the unborn are given the same rights and respect to live as the born.


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an Act to grant access to records of the Special Committee on the Defence of Canada Regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to make available to the public the records and information acquired by the Special Committee during World War II. Those records are still under lock and key and are not available. It is now 1984 and the war ended in 1945. I believe it is time those records were made available to the Canadian public.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House Leaders and I believe that there will be unanimous consent to pass the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Mitges, moves:
That the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Wednesday, June 13, 1984 be concurred in.


Vacancy
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


David Michael Collenette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It had been my intention to introduce today for first reading the Multicultur-alism Act. Unfortunately the royal recommendation has yet to be appended. If we secure that later this day I hope I will have the consent of the House to introduce it, since I tabled the report of the Committee on Visible Minorities just a few moments ago.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister approached me with respect to obtaining leave to table this Bill. I should say at the outset I was surprised he would approach me because in the Ukrainian News of Edmonton, Alberta, of March 14, Mayor Lawrence Decore accused the Minister of being frightened of Ukrainians. He said he had not done very much for the Ukrainian community. On the other hand, I was quite prepared to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), we cannot enter into debate at this point. I am sure the Hon. Minister is not seeking unanimous consent at this point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would just say that in spite of all this I am interested in seeing this Bill. When the Minister approaches me again I want to get an explanation of this article and also find out what he is going to do about the multiculturalism Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears the Minister does not have unanimous consent of the House at this point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Later on today.



VACANCY


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is now appropriate to give notice of a vacancy, pursuant to Section 10 of the House of Commons Act, for the electoral district of Calgary East:
To the Honourable Lloyd Francis, Speaker of the House of Commons:
We, the undersigned, hereby give notice pursuant to Section 10 of the House of Commons Act that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the House of Commons in the electoral district of Calgary East, in the province of Alberta, by reason of the untimely death of John Kushner, the Member therefor.
Given under our hand and seal at Ottawa, this 20th day of June, 1984.
The notice is signed by myself and by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and witnessed by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 707 and 767.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Did the Government announce a policy with respect to duty payable on vessels built, or whose construction was contracted for, after January 6, 1983 and, if so (a) on what date (b) what rate of duty was announced?
2.	Did the Department of National Revenue exempt Offshore Marketing International Ltd., of Harbour Grace, Newfoundland from duty payable on two 73 metre offshore anchor-handling vessels to be built by the Hyundai Corporation of South Korea for delivery in January, 1985 and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
The proposed Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act was introduced as a Ways and Means Motion on December 7, 1983, retroactive to June 30, 1983. This motion provides for revisions to the Customs Tariff as it pertains to various types of vessels and other water-borne craft. In essence, provision is made for a 25 per cent rate of duty applicable to most vessels and other water-borne craft with the exception of drilling rigs and platforms which are rated at 20 per cent duty. The other main provisions of the motion are to expand tariff jurisdiction to British registered craft and to extend customs jurisdiction offshore to the greater of 200 miles and the edge of the continental shelf.
Recognizing that capital goods such as ships, drilling rigs and platforms are ordered considerably in advance of delivery date, the proposed legislation contains a provision exempting from duty any such goods ordered on or before January 6, 1983, which would otherwise have been subject to duty. January 6, 1983, was the date on which the Government announced publicly its intention to seek legislation in this area.
2. No, the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, did not exempt Offshore Marketing International Ltd. from duty payable on the said vessels.


Mr. Manly: In each year since 1979 did Pacific Forest Products Company of Victoria, British Columbia (a) make applications for (b) receive any export permits and, if so, how many and, in each case, what type of wood, quantities and destinations were granted such permits.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) Applications for


permits to export logs were received from Pacific Forest Products Ltd. of Victoria, B.C. as follows:
1979: none 1980: none 1981: 22 1982: 76 1983: 90
first quarter 1984:	8
(b)	In each case, an export permit was issued.
The additional information being sought is considered to be commercially confidential.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereof, as reported (with amendments), from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motions Nos. 75, 77 and 78 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), and Motion No. 79 (Mr. Fraser).
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of minutes before nine last night I was addressing the House on several amendments, but in particular one which this
Security Intelligence Service
Party has put forward. I want to take this opportunity to say to my friend, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), that he is correct about one thing; there were several amendments accepted at committee. I thought I left the impression yesterday that there were no substantive amendments accepted. However, I have looked at the record and I am prepared to say, out of courtesy to my friend, that I should have stuck with the word "substantive", because there were several amendments accepted. However, I still remain of the opinion that the amendments accepted were not substantive amendments.
I also remind the Minister again that the amendment to Clause 39, which would have allowed the review committee to see the Cabinet documents that refer to the security service, which was passed in committee, is now being attacked by the Minister with a specific amendment wiping it out. I am honour bound to correct the record which I regret was not absolutely accurate but, as I say, my position in substance is sustained.
The provision we speak to now concerns Clause 31 of the Act. What is all that about? I know that today the media are watching this debate and they will be interested in this. Clause 31 follows Clause 30, of course, which sets out the functions of the Inspector General. Under this Bill the Inspector General is to:
(a)	to monitor the compliance by the Service with its operational policies;
(b)	to review the operational activities of the Service; and
(c)	to submit certificates pursuant to subsection 33(2).
The Inspector General is a review officer. He will make sure that this service conducts itself properly and within the mandate as set out in Bill C-9. What our amendment does is to say that the Inspector General should be able to see the Cabinet documents that relate to the activities of the intelligence gathering service. It is necessary to have such an amendment because the Solicitor General made sure that this Bill came in with a special provision that, notwithstanding the fact that the Inspector General was to do this review, he is not allowed to look at Cabinet documents. Exactly the same provision is in Clause 39, which I referred to, with respect to the review committee. It is not allowed to see the Cabinet documents related to the security service either. As I just reminded the Solicitor General, we got an amendment through committee, by accident, I suppose, because some Government Member did not vote, that would have allowed the review committee to see the Cabinet documents which relate to the security service. That is going to be wiped out by an amendment which the Government will get through in this place. This amendment deals specifically with allowing the Inspector General to see them. It is obvious why we ask that. In the words of the Senate committee report on the old Bill C-157, the Inspector General is to be "the Ministry's eyes and ears on the service". Clearly the Ministry's eyes and ears on the service should allow the Inspector General to see the Cabinet documents.


Security Intelligence Service
The Senate committee also said:
If any Cabinet documents relating to operations are in the control of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Inspector General should have access to them.
It is very curious that the Solicitor General cites the Senate committee report for what he chooses to put in the Bill and ignores it for what he chooses not to put in the Bill. In a speech the Attorney General of Ontario gave in Ottawa on February 7, 1984 he said:
The danger is that this secrecy provision can permit the Government to exercise political control over the activities of the service in a manner which is immune from effective review. I believe that there is great merit in the words of Professor Peter Russel, who said in relation to the denial of access to Cabinet documents that: "A Government that is itself so distrustful is not entitled to the trust that this legislation demands from the people it represents."
To make it absolutely clear once again today why we are so angry in this Chamber, it is that these are the kind of substantive amendments which were put forward in committee after listening for weeks to eminent Canadians who appeared before the committee and said that there are things we should do to fix that Bill up. These are the substantive amendments that the Solicitor General and the Government, now headed by the reform man, John Turner, is absolutely refusing to accept. That is the charade and shame that is going on in this Chamber.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motions which are presently before the House. These motions deal with two very important clauses in the Bill. I do not think I would argue that they are the most essential clauses by any stretch of the imagination. Yet the Minister has argued strongly that the Inspector General, who is appointed pursuant to the provisions of these two clauses which are before the House now, is indeed to be the Minister's man, an independent watchdog, within the frame work of the security service.
Let us look at the motions which we are dealing with. The motions would delete Clauses 30 and 31 and would ensure that if Clause 31 is passed the Inspector General should have access to all documents in the possession of the security service. That is a fundamental principle which I would hope Members of the House would see fit to adopt.
With respect to the role of the Inspector General, I argued strongly in committee that this position should only be filled following consultation with and ratification by members of all Parties in the House. It is not good enough that the Government should be in the position of appointing the person who is effectively supposed to act as the watchdog, on a day to day basis, of the operations of the proposed civilian security service. There should be consultations which extend beyond the Government merely talking to itself.
The most important element of the amendments which are being dealt with in this package of amendments is Motion No. 78. That motion would delete the glaring loophole which now exists in this Bill which denies the Inspector General, the person who is supposed to have day to day surveillance of the
activities of the new service, access to what are called confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. The Solicitor General introduced Bill C-157 last May which was supposedly the Government's best response to the recommendations of the McDonald Commission. That Bill was soundly condemned from one end of the country to the other by every analyst and group that read it. Despite that, the same Minister was parading up and down the country telling us what a tremendous Bill it was and what an improvement it was in terms of the protection of civil liberties of Canadians. The same Minister, having suggested that the predecessor Bill, Bill C-157, was a wonderful Bill and a work of art, now comes before the House and asks us to trust him again. Some of us have some difficulties in doing that.
The Pitfield committee, which was chaired by Senator Pit-field in the other place, made a series of recommendations for improving Bill C-15. A unanimous recommendation made by that committee was that if the watchdog was to have any power whatsoever he should obviously have access to documents in the possession of the security service. It sounds pretty straight-forward. If the watchdog, appointed to ensure that there are no political abuses of the operations of a new civilian security service, went to the Director of the service and said that he understood there had been a directive received from the Solicitor General instructing him to spy on the peace movement and asking to see that directive-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: All directives of the minister are available.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -which falls within the definition of a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It does not. If it is a directive it does not.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That document falls within the definition of the confidence of the Queen's Privy Council. That is an incredibly broad definition.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It certainly does not include directives to the service.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I will welcome the Solicitor General's intervention on this point in defence of his rejection of the recommendation by the Pitfield committee on this important amendment. If that is the case, the Director of the new civilian security service can tell the so-called watchdog to get lost. He can say that he does not have to show him that document.
The Committee on Security and Intelligence, which is chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of which the Solicitor General is a member, decides the mandate and scope of the Communications Security Establishment. That is the shadowy body which has the power and technical capacity to spy on literally any conversation in the country. The Solicitor General asks us to trust them because the Cabinet does not allow them to do that under its present mandate. What if another Cabinet, at the stroke of a pen, as they could do, changed the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment? They could say that henceforth the CSE will be


used to feed information to the civilian security service. We are put in a ludicrous position under the terms of this Bill. If the Inspector General somehow got wind of that particular decision and demanded to see the documents in question from the Director of the security service, the Director could tell the Inspector General that he does not have to show him that document. So much for the confidence of the Canadian people in the oversight process of this particular civilian security service.
I emphasize that Senator Pitfield is not a person who lightly recommends that certain confidences of the Queen's Privy Council be made accessible to any individual. Indeed, he was the chief architect of the exemption in the access to information law that led to that particular exemption. Yet that same individual along with other members of the Senate committee said that if there is to be effective oversight and if the public of this country is to have confidence in the oversight mechanism, surely as a minimum, if these documents are already in the possession of the security service, they should not be denied to the people who are supposed to be scrutinizing the activities of that same service. That was the recommendation of the Pit-field committee which the Minister chose to ignore.
I am pleased to say that at least one member on the Government side who I see in the House today, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who was chairman of the committee, strongly urged the committee to accept it. However, despite those urgings by that member of the committee and by a former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), what does the Government do? It says to forget it; it will not trust its own appointed watchdogs with those documents. What incredible arrogance! What a devastating blow to the oversight process that the Government is suggesting meets the concerns of the public in terms of accountability!
The Government denies the right of Parliament to play a role. The basis for its rejection of Parliament's role is that there is another oversight process, an Inspector General and a review committee. That oversight process is gutted of any effective strengths if the Government defeats the motion which is before the House at this point. I appeal to Members of the House to look at what they are doing in terms of the future of this country, to look at what they are doing in terms of oversight. Surely it is not an unreasonable proposition that this motion, which would ensure that the watchers are able to fully carry out their mandate of scrutiny, must be adopted if that mandate is to be pursued with any effectiveness at all.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to make a few comments on this clause. Having spent several days listening to the clause by clause debate and to the amendments that have been proposed, you can see that this Bill is defective in many ways. However, it is not so defective that it could not be improved if we had more time to do so. The only reason we are being forced on this long march
Security Intelligence Service
is that the Minister is worried about the end of the session approaching and he wants to have this Bill go through.
We have heard about the defects to the Bill and listened to arguments about whether the service should remain with the RCMP or should be a new civilian agency. It is an honest difference of view and while I believe it should remain with the RCMP, as do 75 per cent of the people, more time would let people hear the arguments on both sides and resolve it. It is evident that in this great country of ours it takes a month before people on the street really do come to see the issues clearly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Do you think it has been a month? It has been 18.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It has not been before the House of Commons for that long. When we are debating it in the House, that is when it really does get into the homes of the people.
We have also heard the dispute over the powers. We believe that the agency has too many powers. As parliamentarians, we should let the agency begin with narrow powers and expand them in the future if needed.
We have heard arguments on judicial warrants. We have also introduced amendments to limit the time of their effectiveness. Unfortunately, the Government has rejected all of these very reasonable amendments that would perfect the Bill rather than leave it in its present defective state.
With respect to Clause 30 which deals with the Inspector General, while it is a good idea to have oversight on a day-to-day basis by a person who is responsible to the Minister, the credibility of that man or woman could be vastly improved if there was consultation on the appointment of that person so that it was seen to be a position like that of the Auditor General who is accountable to Parliament rather than to the Minister himself. Perhaps that is an idea worth considering. The Minister refused to consider these ideas. We also believe that that individual should be able to see the same documents on which decisions are being made in order properly to enforce his or her mandate and be able to hear both sides of the story. Yet the Minister is restricting that person from seeing these documents, which are Cabinet documents.
As the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) told us in committee, the Cabinet documents which may be involved have been accessible not only by the Minister but the executive assistant to the Minister and the secretaries who typed the document. In fact, several layers of the bureaucracy have access to Cabinet documents and they are not nearly as secret as we might believe. As the former Solicitor General asked, why are we restricting that document from the Inspector General, who is supposed to be a check, when several layers of the bureaucracy at the political level and in the civil service have had access to it?
The Minister's arguments to restrict Cabinet documents failed on the weight of the evidence. I hope that even at this late stage Government Members will remind the Minister that he has been generous in the past. I agree that the Government


Security Intelligence Service
has been generous in opening up the process for public scrutiny and it deserves credit for that. This would be a further step in that direction and would bring great honour to the Minister. Therefore I would ask him once again to change his mind and give the Inspector General at least access to these Cabinet documents.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think I should take a moment to explain once again the Government's position with respect to confidences of the Queen's Privy Council. I know that I cannot make any yards with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). He challenged the Government to be reasonable. He is a Member who does not know the meaning of the word reasonable. If he did, I think we would have had more legislation proceed through this Parliament. In fact, in the context of this amendment, it makes me think of the great difficulty that the NDP has in recognizing the necessity to balance a variety of interests in order to get anywhere. They take the attitude, particularly the Member for Burnaby, that in measure after measure if they cannot get the whole cake, all the icing and all the candles, they would rather starve.
That is not the kind of attitude that permits any Parliament to work. In this particular case, Bill C-157, which I think is greatly improved by Bill C-9, was in itself a considerable improvement over the present arrangements. Bill C-9 takes us that much further. If the Hon. Member had his way and this Bill did not proceed, we would have no reform at all to the system of national security. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) was good enough to recognize that the review process, which is a reform in itself, does represent a considerable improvement and step forward. But as far as the Hon. Member for Burnaby is concerned, unless he gets his amendments or all the amendments, the review process is meaningless.
Let me suggest that the review process as it appears in the Bill is very meaningful. I appreciate the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills recognizing that it is in itself a step forward. The Inspector General and the review committee open the door. Although I can never explain adequately to the Member for Burnaby, let me explain again why it is that confidences of the Queen's Privy Council will-


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister continues to make reference to the need to explain to the Member for Burnaby. The Minister has to explain to the people of this country why he is mandating a service without proper overview.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. If the Hon. Member wants to rise on a point of order, he should stick to a point of order. That is debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: During the administration of the Prime Minister, this Government has moved very considerably to reduce all of the prerogatives of the Government and of the Queen's Privy Council. I would say, and I do not think anyone here could contradict me, that the prerogatives of government have
been reduced by legislation more in the last 16 years than in any comparable period in the history of the parliamentary system of government. We have introduced access to information legislation so that the former prerogative of the Government to keep all documents confidential unless it chooses otherwise has been very considerably reduced. We have introduced the Canada Evidence Act amendments which have reduced the number of documents that can be withheld from court process. We have introduced the Crown Liability Act so that the prerogative could not be asserted which prevented citizens of this country from using the Crown as a matter of right. That power has been reduced. In so many ways we have moved to reduce prerogatives of the Crown, and we have done it for a very good reason. It is because we want, to the maximum extent possible, to have an open and accessible government.
This is not recognized at all by the New Democratic Party but I know it is recognized by the Canadian people. One very important reservation which continues to be reserved are confidences of the Queen's Privy Council. These have been reserved in the Canada Evidence Act. These have been reserved in the Access to Information Act, and they have been reserved for the very good reason that in the opinion of this Government the functioning Cabinet, under the cabinet system of government, requires that Ministers of the Crown and their advisers can communicate with each other in confidence. We think that government is more effective, that decisions are better, if members of the government and their advisers can communicate with each other knowing that those exchanges will not be made public and will not be made available beyond the realm of the cabinet system without the approval of the Prime Minister.
I do not know, but Hon. Members opposite in the New Democratic Party have never given any weight at all to this requirement of cabinet government. I am wasting my time to ask them to do so. I would like, at least for the benefit of the people in the gallery, to explain that you cannot have as effective a cabinet system of government if confidences are not protected.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Tell that to Michael Pitfield.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Let me explain that one of the aspects of privileged communication is advice. I go to Cabinet, and I take to my Cabinet colleagues the best advice I can about how things in the area of national security should be handled. That advice is what we are trying to protect here. If that advice has to be made public or can ultimately be made public, or it is accessible to anyone, there is a very good chance that the Minister will not ask for advice because he may decide not to take it. If he knows that advice can be made public and he can be asked to explain why he asked for advice, why good advice was given to him and he did not take it, he will be less inclined to get advice. The same thing applies to legal advice. I have encouraged all of my officials to get legal advice from the law officers of the Crown whenever they think it will be helpful to


them. That advice is privileged. If they knew that advice could be made public whenever somebody requested it, they would be less inclined to seek advice. I think it is in the interest of good government in this country that that advice should be sought. We are seeking to reserve the prerogative of confidence of the Queen's Privy Council, notwithstanding the establishment of this review committee.
The Hon. Member opposite says that if they cannot get Queen's Privy Council confidences, the whole review process is useless. How wrong that is. I can tell the Hon. Member opposite that no privileges of the Queen's Privy Council have gone to the security service in all of the time that I have been Solicitor General. If that privilege were removed, there would be nothing to be made public under that heading so far as decisions or discussions of Cabinet Ministers going to the security service are concerned.
I think again Hon. Members opposite are very seriously exaggerating the significance of Queen's Privy Council confidences so far as the operations of the new agency are concerned. I can assure them that the review committee system and the Inspector General system will be very effective without it.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on the little sermon we just heard from the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). First, the Solicitor General is dead wrong and he knows that he is dead wrong when he says, as he just did, and as he said on other occasions, that members of the New Democratic Party will not support a proposal, not support legislation, unless it contains everything they want. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker.
I can think of two matters which are still before the House about which we are very co-operative in order to get them through before Parliament adjourns, even though they do not meet the problems which we think they are supposed to solve. We are not satisfied with the proposal to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $50 a month, but we will support it because it is better than nothing at all. We are not satisfied with the amendments to the Labour Code which are being brought forward. We think much more should have been done. In as far as they go, they are an improvement on what we have had. We not only support them but we have indicated very clearly that we will let them through with very little debate on our part.
Those are just two illustrations of the policy we have always followed of supporting legislation if it moves in the right direction, even though it does not contain anything we want.
I think the Solicitor General almost dislocated his shoulder trying to pat himself on the back while speaking. He talked about how Parliament had become more relevant and how much more open the Government is than it used to be. There is a consensus in the country and, I am sure, among Members of Parliament who do not happen to be Cabinet Ministers-I speak not just of Members of the Opposition but of backbench Members on the Government side-that Parliament has
Security Intelligence Service
never been as irrelevant, has never been as little consulted, because the Government decides everything in advance and simply will not listen to any suggestions no matter from where they come.
The Minister talked about the great Access to Information Act. I have had some experience with that Act. We know from the McDonald Commission report that the RCMP security service collected personal files on 700,000 Canadians. I had a suspicion that I may have been one of those people. I followed all the procedures, filled out all the forms, and applied for permission to see my file. I still do not know whether the RCMP has a file on me, although I am reasonably certain it does because I was told that under the provisions of the Access to Information Act such information is confidential. Therefore, I cannot be told even whether there is or not.
Similarly, and I have mentioned this already, using the United States Freedom of Information Act, I applied for the same kind of information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Lo and behold, not being a citizen of the United States, I got from the Federal Bureau of Investigation what they had on me in their files. It was not of any consequence, but there is the difference. That is just one single illustration of the difference between the American Act and the Canadian Act. Our Act is to a large extent a hoax, just another way of creating the image that the Government has done something when in fact it has done very little.
It is the same thing with this Bill, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we need an Act with regard to the security service. What was wrong before was that there was little or no control over the security service. We do not need an Act which purports to lay down rules, regulations and procedures that the security service shall follow and at the same time gives it the power to do, not only everything it wants to do, but that which it did before that the McDonald Commission, among others, indicated was improper and immoral and broke the law. This Bill is changing the law to give the security service the right to do the things which it was not permitted legally to do before.
The Solicitor General, either deliberately or because he does not understand, tried to suggest that we are proposing in this amendment that all Cabinet documents be made available to the public. This is not the time nor the place to discuss what Cabinet documents should be made public. However, it is interesting to anyone who follows what happens in the United States to look at some of the books and articles published in recent years in that country. They will see the vast amount of information about what is going on in the American Government which is now available to the public-Cabinet documents, remarks of Secretaries, who are comparable with our Ministers, and so on.
What we are saying in this proposal is that the Inspector General is supposed to be the watchdog. Supposedly he is the person who will guarantee to the public that the security service is not misusing its powers. The Inspector General is to be the watchdog. The public is to assume that he is there and
4880


Security Intelligence Service
has the authority to ensure that the security service does not overstep its bounds, does not break the law, and gives adequate protection to the people of Canada. If the Inspector General cannot be trusted to get all relevant information, to see all relevant documents and to see all the motions passed by Cabinet, what is the point of having an Inspector General? The only point is the one that we have come to expect from Liberal governments. They will give the appearance of doing something and of dealing with a question. They will create the appearance that the public is being protected while in fact they, the security service or any other department, will be able to continue in the same secretive, high-handed, unilateral manner in terms of decision-making as they always have. This is why we proposed this amendment and why the Solicitor General ought not to try to cloud the issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on Motion No. 75. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. For purposes of clarity, the recorded divisions on the other motions in this particular grouping, Motions Nos. 77, 78 and 79, are also deferred.
The next grouping will be Motion No. 85 and Motion No. 86.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 85
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 38 to 44 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Each member of the Review Committee shall be appointed to hold
office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding seven years." and by renumbering subsection (4) accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these motions which are now before the House, Motions Nos. 85 and 86, is to attempt to point out some very serious deficiencies in the proposed wording of the legislation with respect to the socalled watchdog, the Security Intelligence Review Committee or the SIRC, as it is known.
The Government does not trust Members of Parliament to oversee the operations of the new service. It refused to accept the recommendation of the McDonald Commission in this respect. It refused to accept the precedents of West Germany, United States and a number of other countries in this respect. Instead the Government says that we should trust its oversight process because it is establishing the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
What are some of the flaws in that oversight process, that SIRC process? First, although there is a requirement for consultation before the appointment of the members of that review committee, ultimately it is a decision of the Government as to who will be named to the committee. Government Members can name cronies of the Liberal Government or whomever else they choose without any opportunity for Members of the Opposition to have an effective say in the choice of members of the review committee. In terms of the appointment process, that is the first flaw in this provision.
Second, having appointed these people, what powers do they have under the terms of the legislation? The first constraint on the review committee is that it is bound by an oath of secrecy. Members of the review committee are bound by an oath of secrecy, so they cannot report to Parliament, to the elected representatives of the people of the country, anything which would breach their oath of secrecy. What kind of effective oversight does that give to Parliament? This secret, shadowy security service will be operating without any meaningful accountability whatsoever.
Another significant barrier to effective oversight is the fact that the review committee will not have the power, if the amendment proposed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is accepted in due course, to access Cabinet documents or confidences of the Queen's Privy Council.
I could do no better than quote Professor Peter Russell who talked about the sheer arrogance of this provision and how ridiculous it was that one group of Privy Councillors was not prepared to trust another group of Privy Councillors with information already in the hands of the security service. That effectively guts the review process of any meaning or any substance whatsoever.
Let us look at the tremendous powers which the new security service will have. It will have the power to break into anyone's home, to break into an office or any other place, to steal documents, to remove literally anything it wants to remove, to have access to confidential medical and psychiatric records, to have access to journalists' documents, the offices of Members of Parliament and their documents, and to have access to income tax records. The list goes on and on. We are told not to worry because there will be an oversight committee which will ensure that there are no abuses.


1 suggest that this oversight committee is a completely toothless watchdog because it does not even have access to the essential documents in the hands of the security service. Some of us suspected that the RCMP security service was hung out to dry because of the failure on the part of former Solicitors General to accept political responsibility for their actions. That would continue to be possible under the provisions of this legislation.
We say that the oversight process is a sham. Only the involvement of Members of Parliament in a parliamentary oversight committee, as was strongly recommended by the McDonald Commission, is adequate if these sweeping new powers are not to become a political weapon in the hands of the government of the day. That is the purpose of Motion No. 85, to delete Clause 34.
Motion No. 86 would change the length of tenure of the proposed review committee from one term of five years which would be renewable for a second five-year term to one nonrenewable term of five years. There is a real danger that the agency which is established to oversee the operations of the new security service could become captured by the very service that it is supposed to be overseeing.
There is a danger that if members of the review committee are currying favour with the Government and seeking reappointment to their positions, they will not be as vigilant in their oversight. Limited though it may be, they will not be as vigilant in that oversight as they should be. The amendment before the House would establish a term of office of seven years and would provide that that term should not be renewed in order to prevent that kind of toadying to the government of the day by the review committee.
The bottom line in this series of motions now before the House is that the Government has betrayed the trust of the people it was elected to represent. It refuses to provide for meaningful accountability and oversight for the operations of this new service which theoretically would have the power to say no, no to the suggestion that the security service might target hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Indeed, the RCMP security service opened files on close to one million Canadians, men and women who broke no law whatsoever, activists in the peace movement, activitists in support of the liberation movements in South America and South Africa; yet this Government has the audacity to bring a Bill before this House that would in effect countenance and make legal what was so clearly documented as being illegal by the McDonald Commission, institutionalized wrongdoing.
The purpose of these motions is very fundamental. It is no less than an attempt to restore some semblance of parliamentary oversight; failing that, it is an attempt to ensure that this toothless watchdog, the review committee which is denied access to documents in the possession of the security service, should at the very least not be currying favour with the government of the day in an attempt to win reappointment. Surely this Parliament should accept nothing less if we are
Security Intelligence Service
serious about any kind of oversight of the operations of such a powerful agency in a democratic society.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, Clause 34 which sets up the Security Intelligence Review Committee is another area where our Party differs substantially from the Government. Canadians are entitled to be aware of the difference. Our view is that the officials of the review committee, SIRC, should be elected. Our neighbour to the South with its enormous security problems has its CIA and FBI accountable to an elected body of officials both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. It is the elected officials who bear the ultimate responsibility to the people. We find that principle attractive.
Canadians need to know that the Government is not of the view that it should be putting responsibility and trust in the elected officials, that it wants to leave those responsibilities with people that it, the Cabinet, appoints. It is always dangerous to put information into the hands of elected people who are accountable to the populace in general. They may act in the interest of the people instead of in the interest of the government of the day. As we know from the actions of the Liberal Government, it finds that to be dangerous. People need to know. We have that fundamental difference as to who would be on this body.
When you look at the appointees to the hundreds of Crown corporations who have been appointed by the Governor in Council, the Cabinet, you see immediately why we are concerned. While a Crown corporation can work in certain jurisdictions, whenever they got into deep trouble it has been as a result of the appointees to their boards, appointed by the Liberal patronage machine. Canadair lost almost $2 billion of taxpayers' money, yet the directors of Canadair, all appointed by the Liberal Cabinet, received an increase in salary this year. They are not truly responsible because they are just political hacks rather than people who are genuinely accountable to the shareholders of that corporation, de Havilland also lost money. Every few years this Parliament has to write off $700 million or $800 million which CNR has lost because its directors, appointed through the political patronage of the Liberal Party, have not done their job. When Canadians see the billions of dollars that Petro-Canada has lost with the senior management of that corporation having been appointed by the Liberal patronage machine, they will be absolutely ill. They will be sick at heart because the Government does not have to operate that way. The Government will have to live with the judgment of the people in the next election.
In trying to ease the concern of people, the Government said that appointments would only be made after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the Leader in the House of Commons of each Party having at least 12 members. That is a small step. I suppose consultation is better than absolutely nothing. However, let us look at what the witnesses said. These people tried to do what was right. They took time to read the Bill, ponder it, discuss it, and then gave us the benefit of their thinking. For example, the CJC suggested that in naming its members, the Prime Minister


Security Intelligence Service
should seek the consent of the Leader of the Opposition and should consult the Leaders of the other Parties in the House.
I would go further. If we really want SIRC to have genuine credibility, the Leader of the Official Opposition should be able to appoint one in three or three in five of the review committee. The purpose of the review committee is to lend credibility to the security service so that Canadians know that that security service is not getting into areas that it should not. If we want that committee, which will have to issue a report to Parliament, to be totally believable, the ideal situation would be to have a key person involved, and it should be the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition. If that person were to appoint one out of three or two out of five of the commissioners, the Government would still do the bulk of the appointing but the committee would have enormous credibility if the Leader of the Official Opposition had that right.
Again the Government rejected that proposal, which we had put forward sincerely. The witnesses thought that there should be opposition consent, if not outright opposition appointment, and the Government rejected that. Therefore, as is true with all of the other proposals, whether they are to leave the service with the RCMP, the power of the agency is too broad or the judicial warrants are in effect for too long a period of time, the Government will have to accept the judgment of the Canadian people. The Canadian peole will have to take this matter in hand to get their sovereignty back. The Government will have to be defeated so that a new Government can continue an ongoing review process and make changes to bring the legislation back into line with our traditional Canadian freedoms which we have all come to respect and which I believe are being pushed rather hard by this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, this grouping of motions concerns the clause by which the members of the review committee are appointed. It has been pointed out that the chief problem with the manner of appointment is that this review committee becomes the creature of the Government. Its members are appointed by the Government only, perhaps with some little official consultation. The appointments are decided on only by the Government and the appointees are therefore not in any sense responsible to Parliament.
It is not surprising that the Government, after indicating that the group will not be appointed by Parliament or be in any sense responsible to Parliament, has further indicated that the group should not trust Parliament and must take an oath of secrecy which separates it from Parliament. That oath would in fact bind the committee to the very group it is supposed to be watch-dogging. It is a strange kind of watchdog
which must have a greater loyalty to the group it is supposed to watch than to the group whose interests it is supposed to defend. That is the case here.
This committee will owe its first obligation to the Minister's secret service and any obligation to Parliament will only be such that the secret service will allow. That is to say, the secret service will tell this committee what its limits are under the oath of secrecy, what information it is permitted to reveal to Parliament and what information it is not permitted to reveal to Parliament. It is because of that that we are experiencing this charade of Privy Council confidences.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has said that there are no confidential Privy Council documents being used by the secret service at present. He did not say that no such documents would be used but he did say that there are not any being used at present and that this is not an issue. If in fact this is not an issue, he should not have insisted on putting that restriction into law. He contradicts himself in that way. What is he afraid of? Is he afraid that people who have been handpicked by the Government are not to be trusted? He tells us a ridiculous story about how every Cabinet document cannot be made public.
No one on this side of the House has suggested that every Cabinet document should be made public. We have suggested that if a Cabinet document has been made public to the extent of being shown to the security service for its use, something which the Minister says has not yet happened but clearly thinks might happen-and he might even want it to happen- then it should also be made available to one more person. It should not be made available to the whole world. It should not be made available to the press of Members of Parliament per se. It should be made available to the Inspector General and to the people who have already been hand-picked by the Government to review such documents. The Solicitor General acts in such a schizophrenic way that he now says that the group he is supposed to trust is not to be trusted.
The question is why we should trust the Solicitor General and the Government he represents. This is the party which used the War Measures Act against the Japanese in Canada 40 years ago, an action that has been regarded almost universally as being shameful and unjustified on the grounds then given of security. In recent years it has become apparent that the then Prime Minister and his Cabinet knew that such action was not justified on grounds of security because their own security advisers in the RCMP and the army had told them that it was not justified. They did it for other meaner purposes than security but used security as a cloak.
Likewise, the invasion of Montreal 14 years ago by the troops of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) occurred after the Liberal Government again invoked the War Measures Act for reasons that have not yet become clear. The actions taken at that time did help to disrupt a reform threat in the Montreal municipal elections but we really do not know what the Government was after. It certainly did not accomplish any of its stated purposes by invading Montreal with tanks and by


throwing 300 or 400 people into jail, none of whom was found chargeable.
Very soon the voters will be asked to elect Members of Parliament. They will be told by the smooth talkers in the Government that the people they elect will defend their liberties as well as do other good things. They will be told that they are sending people to Parliament to guide and if necessary oversee the Government. Yet if this Bill has been passed by that time, that purpose will be completely frustrated because those who will be sent to Parliament, even the majority of those on the government side, will not have an opportunity to look into what is happening with the security service. Only a privileged few within the Cabinet itself and perhaps a few other Privy councillors who are satisfactory to the Prime Minister will have that opportunity. No one elected to represent the great majority of the ridings in Canada will have any right to watch over the actions of the security service. That is a destruction of the liberties we enjoy in this country.
I received a telegram from one of my constituents which reads:
The Canadian Government sometimes forgets it is elected to serve the Canadian people. We, the Canadian public, cannot allow our fundamental rights to be "subverted" by government bureaucrats and the RCMP.
He might well have added to that "and by the new security service". This legislation will be marked as being the achievement of 1984 in Canada. The tradition of democratic control of the police, democratic control of the state that uses force and information search and intrusion techniques, democratic control of the powers of coercion, will be decisively taken away from the elected representatives of the country. That will be a sad day, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the House but I do wish to say a word or two in regard to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. I think the provision for this committee is probably one of the most important items in the Bill because the public will depend upon the committee to see that things are done properly and correctly.
I would like to hear the comments of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) on one or two points in connection with Clause 34. The committee is appointed by the Governor in Council or by Cabinet. The committee is therefore responsible to Cabinet, not to the House of Commons or to Parliament. I do not have any great objection to that, although I would much rather have it responsible to the Parliament of Canada. However, being responsible to the Cabinet is certainly not too farfetched if the Cabinet is responsible to the House of Commons and gives the House of Commons the information which is available and which it needs or wants.
There is a provision in Clause 6(2) which bothers me. That is the fact that the review committee is not able to give any information to the House of Commons committee for review. The House of Commons committee is denied that under Clause 6(3). It reads:
Security Intelligence Service
Directions issued by the Minister under subsection (2) shall be deemed not to be statutory instruments for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Therefore, directions which are issued by the Minister to the review committee are being denied to the House of Commons committee. What is that? The committee in the House of Commons is composed of Members of Parliament from all Parties. The committee is the only access which Members of Parliament have to this type of information. If the House of Commons committee is denied information by a direction from the Minister and that information is made available to the Director or to the review committee, then that information is not available to Members of Parliament.
That is a very strange way of making Parliament responsible. Surely a committee set up in this House to review statutory instruments should have access to information which pertains to that. Why should information which concerns the civil liberties of the people of Canada be denied to a parliamentary committee? I cannot follow that. Is it that the parliamentary committee cannot be trusted? The review committee is being trusted. If it originally came from the Minister, that would mean that a number of public servants had already seen the information. Anyone in the Minister's office would have had access to that information. Several layers of public servants would have had access to it. Yet the House of Commons committee, which is set up by Parliament and under the rules of the House, would not be able to look at the information.
I do not think that is sound. If Parliament is responsible then the committee is accountable to Parliament and Parliament must have all of the facts-not just the facts which the review committee wants to give to it, but all of the facts. If the Parliament of Canada is denied that, it would indicate that the Parliament of Canada cannot be trusted; or, in broader terms, that the people of Canada cannot be trusted. The information should be made available to a committee of the House of Commons in order that it can analyse the information to determine if the information is right and proper. It might well be that a Minister issues directions which he feels are in good sense and good order. However, sometimes there are differences of views in regard to what is right and what is wrong. The Minister may very well issue instructions to a committee or to a public servant that are not correct and not in the interests of the people of Canada. Perhaps the instructions might be in the interests of an individual or in the interests of a political Party. Then what happens? A committee is set up in Parliament to review those instructions and to keep tab on them, but that committee cannot see them.
That is not accountability in my view. That is hiding the facts from the public. It is slipped in here in such an innocent way that I would think probably one out of every ten people would not even realize that it is in the legislation. Does the press realize that this type of information will not be given to the House of Commons committee which was set up to study it? I have not seen any mention of it in the newspapers. Therefore, the people outside this House are not able to receive the information. We might send a few of these Bills out to our


Security Intelligence Service
constituents. However, unless those constituents have been given some guidance as to what is going on and what parliamentary terms mean, the Bills become almost meaningless.
I would like to mention another point which has been raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). It is in connection with the oath of secrecy. When the members of the committee are appointed by the Government in Council, they must take an oath. That oath is included in the Bill. I have no objection whatsoever to the oath of office because I think it is right. I think there are bounds within which people who are members of committees must be restrained from giving information to every Tom, Dick and Harry or Mary, Ann and Josephine. However, surely that should not be applicable to Members of Parliament who are responsible to the people. The oath of secrecy reads:
I,. .. , swear that I will not, without due authority, disclose or make known to any person any information acquired by me by reason of the duties performed by me on behalf of or under the direction of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or by reason of any office or employment held by me pursuant to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. So help me God.
"Without due authority". From whom would they get the authority? From the Cabinet? Perhaps from the Minister. Normally the authority would be given by those who appoint a person. They are the only people who should have responsibility. When it is everybody's responsibility, it is nobody's responsibility.
I think we should give careful thought to this whole matter to ensure that this body will be responsible and accountable to Parliament-not only to the Cabinet but to Parliament which represents the people of Canada. That is the number one issue as far as I am concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on Motion No. 85. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. Of course, that will also automatically defer the vote on Motion No. 86.
The next group of motions is headed by Motion No. 93. This series of motions for debate includes Motions Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97. Motion No. 93, proposed by Mr. Burnaby-by Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves that Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 5 to 7 on page 19 and substituting the following therefor-
Shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 93
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 5 to 7 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"(vi) to review the regulations,
(vii)	to compile and analyze statistics on the operational activities of the service,
(viii)	to review criteria for security assessments pursuant to subsection 13,
(ix)	to review the relationships between the service and all other bodies and agencies engaged in security or intelligence functions in Canada, and
(x)	to review terms and conditions of employment established by the director pursuant to section 8 of this Act;".


John Allen Fraser: Motion No. 94
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 38 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 19 the following:
"(b) to review, generally, the effectiveness and the propriety of Canada's security and intelligence functions and arrangements, including such functions as are carried on by any agency, department or institution of the Government of Canada;"
and by re-numbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 95
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 39.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Motion No. 96
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 39
(a)	by striking out line 27 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor: "evidence, but subject to subsection (3), the Review Committee is entitled"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 42 at page 19 the following:
"(3) No information described in subsection (2), other than a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada in respect of which subsection 36.3(1) of the Canada Evidence Act applies, may be withheld from the Committee on any grounds."


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 97
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out lines 30 to 32 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"Inspector General and to receive from the".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, when you were reading the motions, you referred to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) as "Mr. Burnaby". I just want to point that out. While he has perhaps properly acquired the title in his work in this debate, in the interests of equality in the House, when you refer to me next, could you call me "Mr. Vancouver", please, Sir? It would help in the re-election of all our Hon. Members!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I appreciate the correction. As I recall, I did make a slip of the tongue and used the constituency, although I then added the words "Mr. Robinson". Debate.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, this series of amendments is absolutely critical to the Bill, and Canadians genuinely have to understand that the Parties have a very distinct and different view of them. What the Government has done, I feel, is just simply wrong. It is going to pay a bitter penalty for it. While we think we could have convinced Government Members to make some changes, part of the problem is the New Democratic Party. It has attacked every clause with equal vehemence because it had no sense of judgment as to what was absolutely critical to the Bill, and because it has used an elephant gun even on the pigeons, now that we have come to an elephant. Because of its stalling tactics, Canadians do not appreciate how critical this clause is.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the review committee, in our view, should have access to Cabinet documents. The Senate committee which looked at this matter and heard dozens of witnesses felt that the review committee should have access to Cabinet documents. The Government did not and so there was no access put into Bill C-9. The witnesses who came before the committee said that the review committee should have access to Cabinet documents. A motion was put forth to bring that about at committee stage and it was passed by that committee so that, as the Bill which was reported from the committee stood, the review committee would have access to Cabinet documents.
The Cabinet has now put forth Motion No. 96 which would reinstate secrecy and the review committee would not have access to Cabinet documents. I sat in committee that night when this clause was being discussed at committee stage. Government Members on the committee were divided. As a result, one of the Government Members voted for our amendment, and that was quite appropriate, Mr. Speaker.
I guess what I am saying is that we have a process here in Parliament and we should trust that process and not let a Cabinet lay on its heavy hand. The Government is wrong. The Government is abusing the parliamentary process with the amendment it has put forth. It is abusing the trust of the Canadian people. Those Government Members are going to have to be defeated, every single one of them in the next
Security Intelligence Service
election, by the looks of it, in order that we can get that trust back.
On this question, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Liberal backbenchers to search their conscience and to look at this issue. We know many of those Hon. Members believe there should be access to Cabinet documents. Indeed, the former Solicitor General who was part of the Cabinet and was the Solicitor General through the FLQ crisis, or at least part of that time, believes that this review committee must have access to Cabinet documents in order for that review committee to have credibility for it to be able to function effectively in holding the agency to account.
Where is Mr. Turner on this issue, Mr. Speaker? We know that his first official act in his role as pro tern Prime Minister, after being briefed in the afternoon, was to permit closure to be brought in on this Bill. We know that his second act was to have this Bill attack the real cultural tradition of this institution.


John Leslie Evans: How do you know that?


Blaine Allen Thacker: I presume that the Liberals are smart enough to brief their pro tem Prime Minister. Am I to assume, Mr. Speaker, that those Hon. Members are not informing their leader of these attacks on our institution?
However, his third act, Mr. Speaker, is to condone an action whereby the Cabinet is attacking the very parliamentary process which he claims he is going to strengthen. He is calling for more free votes. Well, let us have a free vote on this because I am confident that the Liberal Members of Parliament, in using their heads, would agree with our position on the issue and would vote with us. Indeed, they did at the committee stage, Mr. Speaker. Now Cabinet is going to sit on its members. Cabinet is saying to those Hon. Members: "You might be elected by the people, but if you do not go with us, we are going to hurt you. You will not get on any boards or commissions. There will be no judicial appointments for you. Either you fall in line or we will punish you". That is how the Liberal Cabinet has traditionally kept those Hon. Members in line.
Motion No. 94 in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), should also be accepted, and I believe it would be accepted by Liberal back-benchers if we could have a free vote. What this motion says is that the review committee should not only have access to the documents and the work of the security service, but it should also have access to the security functions of other branches of government.
For example, we know that the External Affairs Department conducts extensive intelligence work, as does the Department of National Defence. Yet only the new agency will be subjected to overview by this review committee. Given the history of this Cabinet, there is no doubt what it will do when it is into something it wants to be kept secret. It will try to get the security service to do it. If the Director, because he has a review committee, says no, he will not touch that with a


Security Intelligence Service
ten-foot pole, they will simply assign the job to the Defence of External Affairs security service and do indirectly what they cannot do directly. The motion by my friend from Vancouver South says "no way". All of these agencies have to go through the review committee so it will have a broad overview of what is going on and provide for some real accountability.
Make no bones about it, Mr. Speaker, this is a critical Bill. I regret that the NDP have sort of dissipated its importance by attacking everything equally. By applying some judgment to it, we should have forgotten about all the small clauses and honed in on the five or six critical areas. I think we could have more effectively convinced the Canadian people to go with us and put enough pressure on back-benchers on the other side that they could have stood against the Cabinet.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise again in this debate, especially after my colleague was interrupted by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). This distinguished Government Member was shouting across the Chamber because my colleague said what must be said. That is, that the first act of the reform-minded John Turner, who brought in the War Measures Act and never explained why, and never explained why he left this place, in fact never explains anything until a clarification comes up and you have to wait a long time for that-


John Leslie Evans: Your fear is showing.
Mir. Fraser: The first act of the new Leader of the Liberal Party was to approve closure on the security Bill. If my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), who happens to be my Member of Parliament, is prepared to rise in his place and tell this House that the Hon. John Turner, this reform-minded fellow from yesterday, is not in favour of closure on this Bill, then let him stand up and say so.


Mr. Gourde:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Gourde) on a point of order.


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has finished, but I just want to remind him of the rules of relevance in debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. member for Vancouver South.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, was there in committee. He contributed mightily to the committee's work by moving a motion that would have cut off any debate whatsoever on any amendments. He contributed a great deal and he talked to me about relevance. Let me say something about relevance. It was not a Member on this side who raised the issue of whether Mr. Turner agreed with closure. It was the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre who
raised it. All I was doing was giving my friends on the Government side the courtesy of responding to them.
There is another thing being done by this reform-minded Mr. Turner. Motion No. 96 is in the name of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan). In the committee the only amendment of substance that was passed was one which said that the review committee should see the Cabinet documents that relate directly to the security service. That is what we managed to get done in committee. Now, with Mr. Turner's blessing, the Solicitor General comes in here a couple of days after this great reform convention-they are going to open this place up and let the fresh air in-with an amendment which would wipe out the only substantive amendment passed in committee. Some reform! As I said yesterday, it is not a new deal, it is the old deal writ large. We are going to be asking the Canadian public the simple question: Would you buy a used government from Mr. Turner? That is what they will be getting. That is what the issue will be in the coming campaign.
It is absolutely incredible. This Government tells us to get on with second reading, to get the Bill into committee, listen to the witnesses, make our motions for amendments, and the Government will give them due consideration. If there are sensible suggestions from sensible people they will listen and accept them if appropriate. We get an amendment in which finally gives the review committee what they absolutely have to have if they are going to be a review committee, and that is the right to see the orders from Cabinet. Sure, it was by accident because a Liberal Member was asleep in his chair, but we got it through nonetheless. But then what happened? The first thing Mr. Turner tells the Solicitor General to do this week is to get an amendment in to make sure there is no way in the world the review committee could ever look at what the Cabinet orders the agency to do.
This reminds me of the marvellous theory of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In 1977 we asked what they had been doing after these revelations of wrongdoing. He said we do not need to worry about secret acts done in the night by the police, the courts will protect us. That is what that great law professor, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, said. What a laughable notion that was and is. If there are secret things done by the police in the dark of night, the court will never hear about them so they cannot protect us. But that notion is alive and well in this Chamber. The Solicitor General is imbued with it, as is the pack of mummified creatures which represent their constituencies on the Government side. No matter how ancient they may be or what wisdom they may have accumulated, they are all wrapped in mummy clothing and all you will ever get out of them is dust from their old, staring faces. These are the people who are going to go along with this quaint notion of the Prime Minister. They will make absolutely sure of it because the new Leader has made sure that the only substantive amendment the Solicitor General has at report stage is to wipe out what we managed to do in committee. How can a review committee give the public any confidence that it will know what is going on if it cannot see those documents? The fact of


the matter is it cannot; the Government knows it but it just does not care.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), has often mentioned the good relationship we both have. He is right, on a personal basis, and I also admire him as a parliamentarian, because the way he works is usually very non-partisan.
Unfortunately, during the last few hours he has started fighting the next election. That is unfortunate, because at this stage of a Bill, we should be dealing with individual clauses. He said, for instance-and not once but several times-that the Government did not accept any substantial amendments in committee. I would like to emphasize at this point that we accepted about fifteen amendments to this Bill at the committee stage, including several to narrow down the definition of threats to national security by adding the qualifier "serious", which was proposed by the Official Opposition and the Senate, since it was a fairly serious amendment.
We also clarified the provision that gives individuals the right to appear in person before the Review Committee. We agreed to make substantial changes in the Immigration Act. And we also reduced the maximum duration of warrants issued in cases of subversion to sixty days, from the previous duration of one year.
If we include Bill C-157, there have been fifty or more amendments up to now. Since a number of those amendments were presented by the Hon. Member and by the Progressive Conservatives, the Hon. Member must admit these were amendments of substance.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the rules of the House have changed. Are Members now permitted to take photographs inside the Chamber? If they have changed I would like to take a few photographs too. One of the Liberal Members just took a photograph a few moments ago. That is against the rules of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The taking of photographs is not allowed in the House except by personnel of the House of Commons with special permission of the Chair. I would ask all Members to refrain from such a practice.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I suggest the film should be destroyed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) on the point of order.
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, I am the one who took a picture. I was trying to see if there was film in the camera and it will be destroyed. You have my word.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motions Nos. 93 through 97 which are presently before the House. We are now at the point in the deliberations of the House at which the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) is attempting to reverse the one decision of substance by the committee to strengthen the provisions of this Bill. I emphasize that and hope that Members of the House are aware of exactly what is going on here. On a casting vote of the chairman of the Justice Committee the committee decided that the Security Intelligence Review Committee should have full access, at least to all of the documents which are in the possession of the security service itself. That was the decision of the Justice Committee.
I note that that decision was taken despite the fact that the former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), was yanked off the committee. Although he attended meeting after meeting of the committee and heard the witnesses that appeared before the committee, when it came to the tough decisions on voting, despite being the Solicitor General of this country for four years, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East was replaced by members of the Liberal Party who had never attended meetings of the Justice Committee.


John Leslie Evans: Are you sure he did not ask to be taken off?


Svend Johannes Robinson: What a shameful manipulation of the committee-


John Leslie Evans: Did he tell you he was yanked off?


Svend Johannes Robinson: -by members of the Government. Despite his expressed desire to vote on amendments, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East was pulled off the replaced by the trained seals on the other side.
On this motion the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East said:
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the review comittee was to give credibility to the Bill, to assure the public that there would be a balance between the needs for security and the needs for protection of civil rights and so on. There are not too many occasions when Cabinet documents will be the subject matter of review by the security service, or in their hands.
He went on to say:
But refusing to allow the review committee to examine them I think raises again more suspicions in the minds of the public. I have made this argument many, many times. I just cannot understand why we insist on preventing them-
That is a man who was the Solicitor General for four years. He is indicating that he has no idea why the Government is refusing access to these documents by the review committee. The chairman of the committee himself cast the deciding vote. The Liberal Member who chairs the committee said:
The chairman has reflected for a long time on this subject and has heard all arguments. The chairman has never been convinced by the Minister that there was reason for those documents in possession of the service not to be shown to


Security Intelligence Service
the oversight committee. For those reasons the chairman votes in favour of the amendment.
The amendment actually carried in committee. It was the one amendment of substance to be put before the committee and adopted. Now before the House the Solicitor General tells his trained seals that they do not want to accept the decision of the Justice Committee and tells them to reverse it. What insufferable arrogance on the part of the Solicitor General!
Professor Peter Russell was one of the many witnesses who appeared before the committee. The witnesses were virtually unanimous on the question of access to Cabinet documents by members of the review committee. Professor Russell said:
It is preposterous that some of the Queen's Privy Councillors cannot trust other of the Queen's Privy Councillors.
The Government that seeks our trust in establishing a civilian security agency under its direction must trust the watchdogs it will appoint on our behalf.
Those are the remarks of Professor Peter Russell. He talks of the sheer arrogance of the Government in this provision.
For once the committee was actually prepared to listen to the witnesses. Then the Government turns around and says to hell with the Justice Committee. Even though the Government puts its trained seals in, the committee will still be prepared to accept the amendment. But the Government is going to reverse what the Justice Committee did in the one area of substance. What a mockery of the independence of committees in the House!
The Senate committee was chaired by Michael Pitfield. He surely is not one lightly to disregard conventions of Cabinet secrecy and so on. Even the Senate committee strongly recommended this amendment. It unanimously recommended that the Security Intelligence Review Committee should have access to all documents, including Cabinet documents, in the possession of the security service. The Pitfield committee said:
As with the Inspector General, the SIRC should have access to all cabinet documents in the possession of the CSIS. Finally, the committee believes that the staffing of the SIRC is a very important matter and should be done with care to ensure that it is a small but effective body.
We can hear from the Minister's flunky, his Parliamentary Secretary, if he dares to stand up and defend this provision, if he is capable of defending this provision, which some of us doubt. We can hear from the Minister's flunky in due course.
However, the Pitfield committee makes it very clear that at least the review committee which is made up of Privy Councillors should be trusted by other Privy Councillors with documents in the possession of the security service. We reject the suggestion of the Minister that the decision of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should be overturned and that secrecy should be the order of the day with respect to this review committee, particularly when the Government refuses to accept the recommendations of the McDonald Commission and the many witnesses who appeared before the committee. Parliament itself should play a role, not just to a group of handpicked former Privy Councillors. The Congress of the United States has trusted members of Congress to play a role in oversight.
The Government denies elected representatives the right to full and effective oversight and says that it is establishing a committee. But even though that committee will be made up of Privy Councillors, it will not be trusted with documents that are in the hands of the security service. What insufferable arrogance on the part of the Government. What denial of any meaningful oversight.
The motions before the House would also ensure that the relationships between the security service and any other bodies and agencies engaged in security or intelligence functions in Canada would also come under the umbrella of the review committee. Otherwise it will be all too easy for a government to evade its responsibility and evade the scrutiny of the oversight committee by in fact transferring responsibility from the Security Intelligence Service to some other shadowy intelligence agency that does not fall under the umbrella framework of this legislation.
Therefore, I urge Members of the House for once to display a little bit of independence. We know we cannot rely on the flunky, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, to do so, but certainly I know that when the time comes to vote on this important motion perhaps there will be one or two Members on the other side of the House who will display some sense of integrity and dedication to the principles of effective oversight and will vote against the Solicitor General's motion.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, in joining this debate on the motions that are now before the House, I want to make some particular remarks about Motion No. 96 which deals with the amendments permitting greater access by the Security Intelligence Review Committee to information held by the Cabinet. One must consider this amendment in the context of the whole creation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and all that has gone on before in terms of freedom of information. Those are the general thoughts that I want to put on the record in the House.
First, the Government brought before the House of Commons a freedom of information Bill called the Access to Information Act. The purpose of the legislative measure was to throw light on information held by the Government and to make it of a public nature, to the extent that it was in the public interest to do so. The principle that was adopted by the Parliament of Canada in enacting the access to information legislation was to allow sunshine to come into the government arena so that those who needed information from the Government for whatever purpose could obtain that information. That was a principle that was endorsed almost unanimously by the House of Commons. It is in that context that we must approach any attempt to keep information held by the Government secret.
We must start with the premise that all information should be public and that there must be very serious reasons for keeping information away from the public in general terms. The point I want to make is that the Government and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), in dealing with this matter of access to information by the Security Intelligence Review Committee has not only disregarded the general principle of


access to information but has disregarded the real need for access to information in this particular circumstance.
The public concern about a Security Intelligence Service for Canada is that the powers given to a service and the officers employed in such a service can be abused. The only safeguard against that kind of abuse is a review by some authority independent of the Security Intelligence Service. If that authority, which is the Security Intelligence Service Review Committee in this case, has its powers hampered by unnecessary legislative constraints and restrictions it will simply not be able to carry out its task.
What is more important is the signal that this kind of legislation amendment gives to those who are deeply and properly concerned about security intelligence legislation. The signal that is sent out by the kind of legislation amendment that is now being demanded by the Solicitor General is that the Government does not intend to have free access to information in this area of the review of the Security Intelligence Service. It wants to allow matters to be covered up, hidden away or obscured. That is entirely inconsistent with the purpose of a review committee. If the review committee has anything hidden from its purview and has any restrictions placed upon its access to information that relates to the operation of the security intelligence service, then that committee will not have the kind of power and authority that is essential to carry out its mandated function.
In simple terms, if the ability of a review committee to search out facts is going to be restricted, then there might as well not be a review committee. Those who want to hide the facts will simply hide them under that particular carpet. They will find ways to characterize and classify information as falling within the exception to the rule of access rather than to falling in the general right to access to information.
Those are the kinds of games that government officers throughout the bureaucracy of the Government of Canada has been playing in the last 16 years. The minute that a method is provided to hide information from those who would otherwise have a right of access to that information, they will use that exemption to hide that information in question. If Members doubt the ability of bureaucrats to utilize that kind of provision, I can say, after a number of years of experience in dealing with these matters, that that is exactly what they do. How do you think the Department of Finance hides away information concerning the finances of Canada? How do you think Revenue Canada hides away processes and procedures that it follows, as we have seen demonstrated time and time again? It is all under the claim of exemption and under a claim that there is no need for the public to have knowledge of that particular action. It is always under some statutory exemption or colour of right. That is what the Solicitor General is giving to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He is giving the service the colour of right to hide away information from the review committee. In that way the Solicitor General is destroying the whole purpose and raison d'etre of that review committee.
Security Intelligence Service
I believe we must stand and point out these matters. In my view, the public is not interested in this Bill in the way it has been presented to the House of Commons. There is no urgency. The only urgency is the empty space a few streets away from the House of Commons that the Solicitor General had rented for the Security Intelligence Service. There is no need to have a Security Intelligence Service this month as opposed to the next month or the month after. It is a false sense of urgency attached to the presentation of this Bill in the House of Commons. That false sense of urgency has been used as an excuse for such steps as closure that has been forced upon the House of Commons in relation to its deliberations on Bill C-9.
It is that idea of urgency that excuses the Government's action in invoking closure in this situation. But that will not wash with the people of Canada. There is nobody out there waiting for the establishment of the Canadian Intelligence Security Service, waiting for it to catch spies and to stop the espionage that may or may not be taking place in Canada. I do not know of one person who has approached me and said: "Get the Canadian Security Intelligence Service into operation before the Government and the country collapses". That false sense of urgency is in the big lie category that we have to get this service in operation quickly to save the country. That is nonsense. That is the kind of unnecessary speed and haste that can cause grave difficulties in the future. That is the kind of speed and haste that causes Parliament and parliamentarians to overlook the real problems that are involved in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the legislation relating to it.


John Leslie Evans: Fifteen years is speed and haste?


Howard Edward Crosby: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) has come to my aid again. He says it has been sixteen years in the making.


John Leslie Evans: Fifteen years.


Howard Edward Crosby: Why has it been fifteen years in the making? Because the people of Canada have not reached any consensus on the matter. I defy the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) who comes from the heart of Toronto and I defy the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to tell me what the views are in British Columbia, Nova Scotia or in other parts of Canada on a Canadian security intelligence service.


John Leslie Evans: You just told us you don't know.


Howard Edward Crosby: If the Minister thinks the people of British Columbia are waiting for this service to come into operation, he is wrong. If the Solicitor General thinks the people of Canada want civil liberties set aside and the RCMP downgraded and denigrated in order to rush through the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, he is wrong. But it just indicates once more that there is no communication between this Government of Canada and the people. It proves once again that that line of communication has been destroyed. The Govern-


Security Intelligence Service
ment does not know what the Canadian people are thinking. This is just one more dramatic illustration that the Government is out of touch with the needs of the people.
We are standing here in the House of Commons debating security intelligence legislation when we should be talking about job creation, about improving the Canadian economy and about getting people back to work.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You should have passed it a long time ago.


Howard Edward Crosby: We cannot stop the debate just because we are forced into that situation by the Government of Canada and by members of the Liberal Party. We cannot stop and we cannot give up on civil liberties. We cannot give up on a national institution like the RCMP merely because the Government of Canada has created a situation in Parliament that offends our sense of Parliamentary democracy.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the motions currently under consideration, I have to say that I have not heard as much gobbledegook in a long, long time as I have heard parroted from the Government benches in the last few minutes.
In one of the motions we are trying to restore by amendment one of the actions taken by the Justice Committee. All we get is shouting from the other side about how they have been waiting to do this for 16 years, and how this great demand is out there in the Canadian public to have a new security service, outside of the RCMP, with unheard of powers, unheard of in this country, unheard of in almost every other western country. In fact, it is totally unheard of.
While we are concerned about the details, we are also concerned as to the state of mind and the thrust that lies behind the Bill, particularly the willingness on the part of the Government to trample over the wishes of even its own Members on the Justice Committee, not to mention the feelings of other Members in all the Parties of the House. Within all Parties there are a number of serious reservations when we are dealing with legislation such as this and with motions such as these that deal with the review system.
Let us look at who makes up the review committee. Clause 34, which has been dealt with previously, reads:
34.(1) There is hereby established a committee, to be known as the Security Intelligence Review Committee, consisting of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than four other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Governor in Council from among members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who are not members of the Senate or the House of Commons, after consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader in the House of Commons of each party having at least twelve members in that House.
If the Government is not prepared to have a body such as that, Mr. Speaker-and I would ask Hon. Members to take a look at all of the documents to which the committee felt it should have access-review all documents, then who the devil is to be trusted in the country in the Government's view? Is the Government saying that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) judgment is not to be trusted, even when he had consulted with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and in consultation with the Leader of our Party? Is the Government saying that the Government's own Prime Minister who appoints these people is not to be trusted, or that other review committee members who are members of the Privy Council are not to be trusted with all of the information to which the Justice Committee thought it should have access? What absolute hogwash that is. These guys have gone right off the deep end. There is no public demand for this legislation.
On the other hand we have the Attorney General of every province in Canada opposed to the legislation, we have civil liberties groups, the Canadian Medical Association, everyone left, right and centre right across the whole spectrum of Canadian political opinion who think this is bad law. The Liberals apparently do not trust their own Prime Minister, even in consultation with Leaders of the other Parties on this.


John Leslie Evans: No.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You don't trust him. That is obvious and that is why the Government has brought in this amendment to overrule the feeling of the Justice Committee. If the Liberals do not trust whomever their own Prime Minister appoints, whom can they trust? Nobody. I do not blame them for not trusting him. I do not have a lot of faith in them over there either.
We have to ask ourselves again, if the Liberals are that imbalanced and if they are that topsy-turvy in their system of priorities. What is their state of mind and why?
My mind goes back a couple of months ago. I along with one Member of the Conservative Party, Gerard Docquier, President of the Canadian district of the United Steel Workers, and John Fryer, President of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, attended a meeting about two blocks away from Parliament Hill of a group called the Niagara Institute. With the exception of the four of us whom I have just mentioned, the rest were chief executive officers of some of the major corporations and banks in Canada. A question was posed during the discussion. Their answer was virtually unanimous to the query: "When will a condition approaching economic normalcy be restored in Canada?" The assessment by thes chief executive officers was that it will come about in 35 to 50 years.
Is that the kind of agenda to which the Government is going to succumb in this country? Does it agree that that is the state of affairs we will have-unemployment ranging from 10 per cent up to somewhere in the 20 per cent range for the next 35 or 50 years? Those people in the board rooms are mostly the same people who dominate the major councils of the Liberal Party. Have they decided to surrender to that agenda? It is not what anybody wants, but are they going to surrender to it? That is the prediction, unless the Government takes a totally different approach from that which it had heretofore since Confederation. If that is to happen, and if that Government continues to be totally derelict in its responsibilities to do something about the basic economic and social conditions which that situation will create, then it may need some of these kinds of powers to stop civil unrest. Is that the Government's


agenda? Has the Government admitted its failure and the only way the Liberals and their pals can continue to govern is by setting up the agencies of a police state? That is how this service can be used. Why else would the Liberals not accept even minimal amendments such as those proposed by the Justice Committee? Why else would they not propose some of the very minimal amendments that both my colleagues in the Conservative Party and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party are proposing? Why else? Nobody suggests that you over there are a bunch of bad guys. But are you so blind to the economic realities facing this country that you have come to accept the idea that we will see the same kind of growth of terrorism here as we have seen in Europe? God forbid. We have been immune from that so far. Are the Liberals surrendering to that possibility? Are they surrendering to the possibility that people will be continuously unemployed across the country over a 35-year to 50-year period and will be upset? No? Why then do they need the powers outlined in the Bill?
I see no reason. No one demanded it. Nobody aside from a self-appointed commission has ever recommended any of the proposals, and what that commission recommended did not go as far as the proposals in this Bill. The Government does not listen to the appointed members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It does not listen to anyone.
The Government has its own agenda. Whether it is a hidden agenda or a public agenda, it stinks and it is rotten. It ought to call a halt to this business and get on with the real priorities- the economic and social issues on which the people of this country are demanding action. The Government should give up. It is a failure.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak about one aspect of the group of motions before us, the abuse of the concept of Crown privilege. Canada is a monarchy. Most Canadians, whether or not they are enthusiastic monarchists, accept and rely upon the concept of our traditional form of government for both a sense of stability and a sense of fair play. Of course there have often been failures in that regard, but that is the system which is available and it is the one Canadians continue to support and choose. I do not think any one of us is aware of any likelihood of getting rid of it.
The Government is proposing a very serious action which will discredit the concept of Crown privileges. It is not the first time the Government has taken actions to discredit the Crown. However, on this occasion it is more serious. It goes much deeper than the other actions. It is much worse than the abuse of privilege when VIA Rail rode roughshod over Parliament. It is much worse than the abuse of privilege when the Government said that because a Crown corporation took part in a uranium price-fixing cartel, the cartel could not be investigated by the courts. The then Minister of Justice sneered at Parliament and said that we could not investigate the Crown.
When a matter concerns the fundamental liberties of Canadians, not one enterprise or another or a particular part
Security Intelligence Service
of the economy, a matter which may be crucial to the actions of the security service, it cannot be examined by the watchdog appointed by that service nor by the watchdog committee appointed for that purpose, even though they are appointed by the Chief Minister of the Crown. In doing this the Government discredits the Crown in other respects. For example, it discredits the report of Senator Pitfield which soberly indicated that the committee ought to have access to Crown documents among others.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) assured us that there were no Crown documents in the possession of the security service. However, he did not tell us why he was afraid of the recommendation of the committee and he wanted to reverse it. Other commissions appointed under the Crown, such as the McDonald Commission, have also indicated that there should be oversight, including oversight of Crown documents.
Public leaders have spoken on this matter, such as the United Church, the Canadian Council of Churches, labour groups and civil liberties groups. They all feel, with due respect for the basic privilege of the Crown, that it should not be used in this way. The chairman of the committee appointed by the Chief Minister of the Crown and the committee as a whole thought that privilege should not be used in this way. However, the Solicitor General, again in the name of the Crown, overruled them.
For the average man or woman on the street, it is very demoralizing to see the concept of the Crown and the name of the Crown or Crown privilege being turned into nothing more than the privilege of a tiny group of men and women who happen at one time to have responsibility under the Crown. For this to be turned into a weapon that they can use against other agencies of the Crown and all other people who have sworn to uphold the laws of the land, such as Hon. Members of the House and of the other place, makes a mockery of the Crown. That one little group is now grasping the power to deny the obligations of the Crown as they are expressed through Members of Parliament in this place and in the Senate and other public groups established in the name of the Crown. Only one secret group will be allowed that Crown privilege, will be allowed to look at Crown documents, which may affect the liberties of Canadians in a fundamental way that we have never before experienced in the history of Canada.
We are told that some privy Councillors will and must distrust other Privy Councillors. That makes a mockery of the Crown. Apparently this tiny group of men has the power to do this and get away with it. They have been able to wrench the rules of Parliament and of committee. They have been able to drive through their points, notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition had been operating according to the rules. They simply changed the rules when it suited them. They can get away with it, but they do damage to the public morale and the public trust in the Crown which will take years and years to mend.
When the public begins to understand the contemptuous way in which the Solicitor General and his colleagues have


Security Intelligence Service
abused the concept of the Crown, it will not be an easy matter for the Government or any other succeeding government to win the support and trust of the people of Canada. Perhaps the damage is not irreparable, but it will not be repaired for many years to come. It is regrettable that the Solicitor General and his colleagues have acted so irresponsibly as to insist upon reintroducing this abusive use of the Crown privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) seeking the floor on a point of order? He has already had the floor for debate on this grouping.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent because it is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Solicitor General to speak for a second time on this grouping?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I will make my comments very brief. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has called us contemptible. He said that we discredited the Crown and that he considers us disgraceful and so on. I think those remarks were interesting coming from an Anglican clergyman who caused disorder in the House last week. He refused to withdraw his comments and was kicked out on a motion of the House. He is the one who is a disgrace to Parliament, and I thank him for giving me his consent to make these remarks.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my objections to those of the many other Members who spoke this afternoon. The Government is attempting to undo the work of the committee. Certainly there are several clauses in this particular Bill which have received a great deal of attention, and rightly so. Civil libertarians, most people who are involved, have experience and will be affected by this Bill, have spoken against those clauses, certainly Clause 39. It has been said many times that the Government watchdog, even though it may be a sleeping watchdog, should have access to Cabinet documents, not all, just those that are relevant. The reason why civil libertarians and others zeroed in on this clause is that they recognize that if the watchdog committee does not have access to these documents, a great deal of harm might flow from that.
In most countries of the world where people's rights have been restricted, downtrodden, stepped upon and trampled on, this invariably started through political activity. Unfortunately, governments such as this which have been in power for a long time gain in arrogance, they have a feeling that they govern by the grace of God, by Divine right. If there is objection or opposition to those governments, they take away the rights of certain citizens on the grounds that it is good for the public as a whole. They want to maintain the public good, as it were.
In many countries in Europe, Asia and Africa this type of slow and steady erosion of the rights of individuals has occurred. Unfortunately, it is usually done in the name of the law. That is the kind of loophole that Clause 39 creates for this Government. With all due respect, this Government has had a lot of experience in trodding on the rights of others. Historically, this Government has shown that it panics very quickly. We need only look back to the imposition of the War Measures Act, that phoney revolution that was about to happen in Quebec, to see how quickly that can happen. This type of clause leaves it wide open for the Government to instruct this secret service, these super snoopers, to go beyond the bounds of propriety and investigate things they should not investigate. Even then the watchdog committee will not have access to those instructions. It will never know about them. Parliament may never know. That is something this Government should not allow. The people of Canada are very much opposed to this potential abuse of the civil liberties of Canadians.
It would not have been as bad if the Government had agreed to a tighter definition of Clause 2 to ensure that the secret service had to work within the legal bounds of strict control and had not allowed it to use subversive techniques on those who had not committed a crime. Clause 2(d) in particular is causing much trouble. Then it might not have been as bad that the Government is insisting that the watchdog committee cannot investigate Cabinet documents. However, the Government has not done that. It has not done a lot of things it should have done and which the people of Canada have pleaded with it to do. In its own arrogance, it really believes it is right.
I find it difficult to understand how the Government arrived at that conclusion. In the last four years this Government has done almost nothing right. This Parliament will end in a short while and we will be left with this document. It is a document which is mightily flawed. If Clause 39 is amended as the Government is attempting to amend it, the document will be that much worse.
It bears repeating that the reason the Government has to amend this clause is that the Chairman of the committee voted against the Government. Had the normal complement of Government Members been there, the Chairman would not have had to vote. This Government is so disorganized, uninterested and lacking in will to proceed that it could not raise the number of voting members to ensure that it got its wish, so the Chairman had to vote. He is a very fair Chairman. On many occasions he said he did not like this clause and, therefore, he voted against the Government. That is the committee system at work. That is the whole purpose of it. One would expect the Government to accept something of that nature, but it does not. It abuses the whole process. Why should we waste our time in committee, sitting there hour after hour after hour? Why should the people of Canada spend hours appearing before that committee when the Government uses its powers to steamroll over what the committee proposes? On one hand the Government says it will accept what the committee does, but only in those situations where it gets its wish. Where it does not get its way, it does not accept what the committee does.


The Government tries to have it both ways. I suspect that it will succeed in having its own way for the next six or seven days.
It was said earlier that the people of Canada will remember this. They are very concerned about their rights. They are concerned that this legislation has the potential to damage the freedoms that have been developed in Canada over the past 170 years. It is incumbent on the Government before this day is out to withdraw its objection to the watchdog committee having the opportunity to review Cabinet documents. It may well be a sleeping dog committee because it will not be a committee of elected members, as proposed by most people. It could have allowed a parliamentary committee. Parliamentarians respond to the desires, wishes and fears of their constituents. Perhaps then Clause 39 would not be so bad, but the Government has not done that. It pushed aside every opportunity to make this a good Bill, one which would secure the rights of Canadians and at the same time allow the security service to do that which is necessary. The Government has not done that, and it is not likely it will.
There is one last opportunity for the Minister to correct this Bill. Perhaps he will do that. The Government could then leave this Parliament in the next few days having done at least something worth-while, namely, provided security legislation that is not a threat to every person in this country.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a government should want its legislation to be effective. Looking at the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), I do not understand how anyone who wants proper legislation and the proper operation of a civilian or RCMP corps can vote against this motion. The motion was presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South. He is an experienced parliamentarian, having been in the House of Commons for many years. As a Cabinet Minister, I had the greatest respect for him. He found time to talk to the people and tried to reflect their thinking. That is democracy. I have the highest regard for him. He is trained in the law, practised law in Vancouver, was solicitor for municipalities as well as individuals. With his background, when he presents a motion, it should carry some weight. That is why I find it difficult to understand the reaction to Motion No. 94 to amend Clause 38.
I shall read the motion that we are now asking this House to adopt. If any Hon. Member in the House can give me one reason why this motion should not be passed, I will accept it. However, I cannot conceive of one reason why it should not be passed. This motion deals with the duties of the review committee. Clause 38 describes the functions of the review committee and this motion would add the following to those functions:
-to review, generally, the effectiveness and the propriety of Canada's security and intelligence functions and arrangements, including such functions as are carried on by any agency, department or institution of the Government of Canada;-
Security Intelligence Service
We are simply asking the review committee to look at the effectiveness and propriety of the functions and arrangements of the Security Intelligence Service. If anyone thinks that we do not need to include in the wording of it both "effectiveness" and "propriety", I would counter by suggesting a reason why we do need them both. Something can be effective and not proper. Something can be proper and not effective. I am concerned that under this clause, this committee should have the responsibility to review the functions of this intelligence service to find out if it is effective and is doing the job.
When I was the principal of a school, at the end of every month, and sometimes more frequently, I took an inventory of what the teachers were doing, what was effective and what was not effective. In a classroom, we would discuss why the particular method being used was or was not effective. For example, if a teacher was teaching arithmetic to a youngster in either grade one, two or three and the youngster was simply not learning how to add or multiply, I would say to his teacher: "His mother tells me that he cannot multiply and that he does not understand multiplication. What method are you using to teach him how to multiply?" The teacher would be very co-operative and would review her methods. She would say to me: "I will find out what I am doing wrong or if I am not spending enough time with the child." The following week she would say: "I know what was wrong. I was going over the subject too fast and Johnnie is a slow learner. I have to go through it three or four or five times with Johnnie before he begins to understand what I am trying to do." An owner of a business must check to see whether or not his methods are effective. Are people coming into his shop and buying his products? If they are, his advertising is effective. If they are not, it is not effective and he must make a change. I would think a Government would also check to find out whether or not it is being effective.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South is only asking that the effectiveness of the methods of the security service be reviewed. If the methods are not effective, we should not waste the people's money. Who in this House could vote against that? Surely we want to get full value for every dollar spent. Not even the most extravagant Liberal member would not want government agencies to be effective.
The other key word in the motion is "propriety". We want the committee to review the propriety of the functions of the security service as well. We want it to review its functions to see whether or not it is acting in accordance with good behaviour and good morals. Take the War Measures Act of 1970, for example. It was certainly effective, but was it proper? Was it right to shove scores of people into jail without a trial when they had committed no offence? Some of the people were never even charged at all but were shoved into jail like cattle. The War Measures Act might have been effective but it would not pass a review of propriety because none of us believe in shoving people into jail without even giving them a chance to defend themselves. That is something that can take place. This civilian intelligence service is a body which is being


Security Intelligence Service
given pretty wide powers. We should make sure that its actions are effective, proper and morally right.
The new Leader of the Liberal Party has indicated that he wants to make more use of committees and that he wants to have free votes. I will believe that when I see it. A committee has made a recommendation, but the Government is now going to change that recommendation because it does not agree with it even though its own members supported it. The committee's representations reflected the combined thinking of members of the committee. The new Leader says he will make more use of back-benchers, but will he then have the Cabinet overrule them and tell other Members that that cannot go on, that he will change it and wipe it out? I do not think that that is an effective way to administer a country. If we are going to have such things as committees, then surely the combined consensus of that committee should be accepted, particularly when scores of recommendations were made by people who appeared before it.
What else does this motion attempt to do? I shall read it again:
-to review, generally, the effectiveness and the propriety of Canada's security and intelligence functions and arrangements, including such functions as are carried on by any agency, department or institution of the Government of Canada;-
Does anyone here want to see an agency or Department behave badly, ineffectively and with bad morals? If not, there is no reason in the world why Hon. Members should not vote for this motion. We want effective administration and we want it to have good behaviour and good morals. I would say to Hon. Government Members that if they vote this motion down, they are indicating that they do not want full value for money spent, that they want to do things immorally and that they want to do things that are not proper, and that cannot be called good behaviour. I think every Member of the House should support this motion which has been carefully and excellently phrased by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate after having read Barbara Tuchman's book dealing with power. I would like to engage the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and draw to his attention the whole matter of review and accountability.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), have expressed their points of view, with which I fully agree. I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he would think about and learn from history so that we do not repeat history.
None of us in this place believe that we act as rubber stamps. None of us wish to act that way or will act that way. I give that much credit to all Members of this House. I would like to suggest to the Solicitor General that in the case of accountability and review of the service, he consider that someone somewhere must tell all Canadians what is going on in the way of security, surveillance, intelligence and the like. If the hon. gentleman has not read Barbara Tuchman's writings, he should read them. I have reread them. The German Reichstag, the Italian Parliament, the Parliament in Spain, and even the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union had their parliaments blindly and supinely agree to all the things which went on in those nations before the First World War-in the 1920s and in the 1930s.
In the situation in which we find ourselves in Canada, why would the Solicitor General refuse to accept amendments which attempt to guard against that kind of repetition of history? I can understand small countries which are in the midst of terrible war situations being extra careful and extra militant. But why would we want to bring upon ourselves, in this nation, in the context of the security of Canada, an opportunity for those who would destroy us on the left or on the right as had happened in previous decades?
The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) made the mistake of mentioning the War Measures Act. I believe the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) did the same. They should at least have had the courtesy to blush. In 1970 only one Conservative stood up with the NDP caucus to vote against the War Measures Act. The rest of the Conservative Party voted for its implementation. That was nothing more than a symptom of the disease with which the Solicitor General is afflicted. It is a symptom of the kind of paranoia which wants to put the entire Canadian population into a situation as though we were a major power in the world, which we are not. We account for a lot of things on this planet, but in no way are we in the kind of major leagues in which the Solicitor General feels that this country should be trying to play. He wants to play in a major league with champagne measures for a beer operation.
If we are to learn anything at all from history, it should be the fear and the worry that cause us in our caucus, having learned those lessons not only in other countries but in our own nation, that what may be acceptable now, and what I think is acceptable now, was unacceptable in the 1920s and 1930s in Canada. It was the people who said that we must do something about getting rid of that foreign element who turned the RCMP on to trade union leaders, leaders of ethnic groups and political leaders including plainchothesmen who followed J. S. Woodsworth around. Surely the Solicitor General must know and understand this as well or better than I do.
I think it was Pastor Niemoeller who indicated that one did not tend to protest when laws and regulations such as this one were passed. He said:
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
It would seem to me that any open and democratic society must deal with threats to its security, sovereignty and right to keep secret whatever is worth keeping secret. Democratic societies must face the risk and the threat, even after the fact. There cannot be anybody in a democratic and open society



with the authority to investigate the lives of anyone and everyone for whatever reason without having to account to this place and to the people of the country, even if it means the breaking of the oath of secrecy by a Privy Councillor. I would like to see a review committee which-if it decided against a procedure or action under this kind of legislation-would resign en masse and state why. I would like to see that happen with individual Members. This is nothing more than some kind of a desire by the Solicitor General to become a 007. He wants to join in with the CIA and the 15 intelligence agencies in the United States. The United States cannot even keep track of all of them.
Mr. Speaker, me thinks he doth worry too much. Any secrets which we have, our potential enemies already have. I would cite to the Minister the case which took place when we were dealing with the Elections Expenses Act. I was attempting to obtain the telephone numbers of National Defence personnel and Armed Forces personnel stationed at various bases around the world. I was told that it was top secret information. Then I obtained a copy of the Canadian Armed Forces magazine which published all of the telephone numbers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate. I think it is a crucial and historical debate for the country and for the House of Commons. The question which is before us is: How do we achieve security and peace in this country for the population? Do we do that through adding more police, and more investigators, or do we do that by giving a broader mandate to security agencies? Do we do that by giving a blanket mandate to a new civilian security agency, or, are there other ways of giving Canadians a sense of security?
The legislation before us poses some very serious questions. It gives very broad powers to a security agency and it has very weak oversight provisions. There are very weak checks and balances for those powers. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the giving of very broad investigatory powers to an agency without appropriate checks and balances is bound to increase the strife and insecurity in this nation rather than decrease it. We are living in a time when tensions in our society are increasing by virtue of the inequality in income and benefits which exists in our country. All of us in this House are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the top 20 per cent of the population, for example, receives something like 40 per cent of the total income, while the bottom 20 per cent receives something like 4 per cent of the total income. With inequities like this, there are bound to be social tensions in this country calling attention to the injustices which exist, and there are bound to be political movements calling for change.
The relevance of that sociological comment to the present legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that we must be careful to make a
Security Intelligence Service
distinction between dissent and subversion. If we are to make that distinction, Mr. Speaker, it must not only be made very clearly in legislation which sets out a limited mandate for a security agency but we must also observe this distinction in the administration of that agency. The only way we can observe the distinction between subversion and legitimate political dissent is by having a group which can oversee the actions of this agency.
The legislation before us today falls far short of the requirements with regard to oversight. What we need in this country is parliamentary oversight of any security activity which is going on in the country. This legislation does not provide for that. It provides another form of oversight which is extremely limited. The clause before us indicates how limited that oversight is. This committee, which would be appointed by the Government rather than by Parliament, could not even review all of the documents which would be in the hands of the security agency itself. Therefore, the security agency, in terms of access to information, would be above the review committee. That is a fundamental flaw and it will tend to lead to further distrust in the public's mind with regard to the activities of the security agency.
This legislation poses serious questions for us today because, Mr. Speaker, there are many people in this country who are seeking, through legitimate political means, to bring about a greater measure of social justice, whether they are involved in the native movement, the peace movement or are recent immigrants to this country. For example, there are immigrants to this country from Latin America who are interested in global justice. It is important that these people be given the assurance that an agency such as this will not abuse its authority and in any blanket way investigate anyone who goes on a peace march, or anyone who speaks out on behalf of the native community for social justice in this country, or any members of the Latin American community or the Chilean community who choose to speak out against the injustices of a regime such as the Pinochet regime which exists in Chile today.
I am blowing the whistle on the actions of this Government today, Mr. Speaker, because what it is doing is setting in place a police agency with very broad powers without adequate checks and balances. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that the checks and balances be there if we are going to give these kinds of powers to any agency in this country. We know from Canadian history, and American history as well, that it is possible to abuse power. We must learn from that history and we must guard against the abuse of power. I think specifically of the McCarthy era in the United States when people were labelled as communists and their careers ruined. Intimidation was used to prevent people from speaking out in legitimate political dissent. It is important that we learn from history that it is possible for Government and its agencies to abuse power. We must set in place the safeguards which will protect us from this potential abuse of power.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is fatally flawed and should be changed before the Government seeks passage of it in this


Security Intelligence Service
House. We are moving into an era of Canadian history which demands an act of citizenry, which demands that Canadians speak out against social injustice in this country. In these times we need a more active citizenry. We need people to speak out more forcefully on the maldistribution of income in this country, about the fact that the needs of the native people of this country are not adequately met, and about the fact that we continue to live under the threat of the nuclear arms race. This is not a time to give untrammelled powers to an agency. It is not a time to set up a situation which might lead to the intimidation of people in order to stop legitimate political dissent.
This is a time for sober second thought. That is not an original notion of mine, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the Senate has already taken that sober second thought and said, "Hold on, government of the day. Do not rush forward with this legislation. Amend it and amend it adequately before you present it to the House of Commons and to the public for approval". Therefore, I want to say quite simply, Mr. Speaker, that what we must do today is to sound the alarm. We must let every citizen in this country know that the Government has failed so far to put in place adequate safeguards against the abuse of power by this new security agency which it wishes to establish. There is no way that this legislation should be allowed to pass in this House without the Government changing the legislation and putting in place adequate safeguards. I call upon this Government and on any Hon. Members of the Liberal caucus who have the integrity to stand by their conscience, to-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: There are not too many of them.


Cyril Keeper: Well, hopefully, as the debate contines, there will be at least some Members in the back benches of the Liberal Party who will stand up and say to their own Minister, "Look, we take a long-term view of legislation and we do not think that any legislation which grants greater powers to a police agency should go into force without our putting in adequate safeguards".
So I would call upon this Government to put in place a parliamentary review committee to review the actions of this new security agency which is going to be established. I do not say these words lightly. There are too many people in this country who see the social problems which cry for attention and upon which they speak out. There is no way we should put in place an agency which might at some point abuse its power and serve to intimidate legitimate political dissent. I make the point, Mr. Speaker, that we must draw the line between subversive activities and legitimate political dissent. That line has not been drawn well enough, and as long as that is so, we draw the line and say, "no legislation".


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here for several days now listening attentively to the debate, the interventions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the contributions largely from this side of the House. I do not believe there is very much I can say, or that needs to be said by myself, with respect to this legislation. The objections we have to it have been thoughtfully and
forcefully put in front of the House. I did not intend to enter the debate until my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), made an observation taken from a well known internationalist. I could not help thinking as he was speaking of an experience which I had, and I wish the Solicitor General could spend half a moment with me because I want to discuss Bupindhat Liddar for a moment or two. In the 20 years that I have been in this Chamber I have done one or two things I have not been proud of. A moment of rationalization could excuse the thoughtless way in which I as an individual-I will not speak for my colleagues because of course I cannot- approached the War Measures Act in the early 1970s. I made a mistake and I said so at the time, or shortly after the event. I believe I made another mistake in the summer of 1980. I was called to the residence of my then Leader, the Righ Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). After a conversation with him, I had an obligation to call the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) further to the subject matter. I did so and, with his counsel and approval, I went further. The consequence of those meetings was to sever the relationship I had with a very bright and intelligent young man who had a good Canadian career ahead of him. He was a landed immigrant. His great fault was that he had an affinity for the PLO and some friends of his were close to it.
On the advice of my Leader, the Solicitor General, and the intelligence force that operated at that level, I severed that relationship. I invited that young man to leave Parliament Hill. That is history, but I recite it because I want to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the difficulty that we can sometimes find ourselves in when we do not have access to information we know we can trust. My conscience is troubled because I was the instrument that forced that young man to leave Canada. He had been in Canada for seven or eight years. He went back to what was then Rhodesia and is now Zimbabwe. He is currently living there trying to eke out a living. He wants to be a Canadian and I denied him that opportunity. I did so, as I mentioned, on the advice of others. I take the liberty of mentioning this, without going into detail because much of it is confidential, to say that on reflection the evidence I was given was not enough to warrant the action I took. Together with a distinguished former colleague in this Chamber, now a Member of the other place, we intend to try to correct that error as nearly as we can.
I do not know what the information was on this individual and I have no way of finding out. I have no way of demonstrating to my satisfaction that in fact the reasons that forced this young man to leave Canada were accurate; that it was not anything other than an attack on his empathy, if you will, for those Arabs in that part of the world who were having problems and difficulties. We must always be careful. It was too easy for me to simply say, "yes, if that is so, then I must act". That was the simple, easy way, but I regret having taken it. I regret that in legislation such as is before us now there is not some capacity for even that form of post factum examination. If documents or files could be looked at even five or ten


years after the fact, if the file were to be examined some day, then those who put the directives together and who carry out the activity would have to think twice. They would know that their actions would be reviewed, not necessarily in the context of the time of the act itself but at some point. I apologize, in a sense, for raising this matter, but, strangely enough, I feel a little better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is on Motion No. 93. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider Motions Nos. 99, 100, 101 and 102 which have been grouped for debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 99
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 100
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 22 to 25 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"dissatisfied with the response given."
Motion No. 101
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion No. 102
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 42
(a)	by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 20 and substituting the following
therefor:
"42.(1) Where the denial of a security clearance required by the Government of Canada is a factor in a decision made"
(b)	by striking out lines 42 to 45 at page 20 and substituting the following
therefor:
Security Intelligence Service "(2) Where the denial of a security clearance required by the Government of Canada to be given in respect of an individual is a factor in a
decision made to deny the".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the clauses which are now before the House with regard to this security legislation and are the subject of the motions before the House at this time are Clauses 41 and 42. These clauses deal with the question of security checks and the role which is to be played by the proposed Security Intelligence Review Committee on the question of security checks.
I will commence my brief remarks on this series of motions by noting that in 1982, which is the last year for which we have figures, the RCMP security service ran some 76,500 security checks on public servants and employees in defence industries. This massive number of security checks has been described by the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, as a glorius waste of people's time. Not only is it a waste of people's time, it is obviously a considerable waste of taxpayers' money. Mr. Fair-weather noted that unnecessary security clearances, unnecessarily high levels of classification, and unnecessary snooping into the lives of individuals are not only wasteful of our resources, not only morally repugnant, but they are discriminatory. Of course that is absolutely right.
One of the purposes of the series of amendments which were put before the House on this occasion is to put some semblance of order into the security assessment process. First, it would significantly narrow the circumstances in which security assessments can be ordered. As I have indicated, there are far too many at the present time. Second, it would require that the criteria for security assessments be clearly set out in statutory form or, at the very least, in regulatory form. As it stands now, security assessments in the country are governed by a 1963 Cabinet directive which is completely out of date and out of keeping with present conditions. That is the first recommendation of substance. The criteria for security assessment should be spelled out and updated.
As well, the question of security assessment should be subject to review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. In that regard, I would note that the amendments in question would strengthen that review process. As it stands now, Clause 42, for example, indicates that where, by reason only of the denial of the security clearance required by the Government of Canada, a decision is made to dismiss, demote or transfer, etc., the appeal mechanism set out in the Act is available. That clearly provides an out for the Government or Deputy Minister or whoever wants to fire, not hire, or not promote an individual. They have to say that that was not the only reason the person was denied security clearance. They must say that they felt the person was not capable of doing the job, the person's health was not good enough, or they already had enough people.
This motion would ensure that in any circumstances in which the denial of a security clearance was a factor in firing, failing to hire, or failing to promote an individual, the review


Security Intelligence Service
process available under this Act would indeed be made available to the individual in question.
I know, or at least I would assume that the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), who represents a constituency in which there are many public servants, would support an amendment of this nature. I see him in the House now. I invite him to rise at the conclusion of my remarks to speak on behalf of the public servants whom he is supposed to represent on this important question. Or perhaps he will remain silent and refuse to speak on this amendment which would strengthen the protections of public servants who are denied promotions or fired from their jobs. Certainly his silence on this subject will be drawn to the attention of his constituents.
Another objective of these four motions is to ensure that in any circumstance in which there is a complaint about the denial of a security clearance or about some aspect of the operations of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, that complaint must be investigated. As it stands now, the review committee has the power to summarily dismiss, without even an investigation, a complaint if it is felt that the complainant is being, in their terms, frivolous, vexatious, or trivial. To dismiss a complaint even before a preliminary investigation on those grounds denies full and effective oversight and review of the operations of the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
There are other concerns with respect to the question of security assessments. I have noted the fantastic number of security assessments. I would like to quote again from Mr. Gordon Fairweather, the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He said:
The unjustified proliferation of jobs for which a security assessment is required has a discriminatory impact, denying opportunities to persons of pardoned (criminal) conviction, national or ethnic origin, marital status or disability, all of which are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act,-
Mr. Fairweather went on to say:
People who are denied jobs because of their sexual orientation or their political belief are discriminated against if the security check was never necessary in the first place.
Once again, those are areas in which the law should clearly be changed to reflect the desire, hopefully, of all Members of the House, not to discriminate on the grounds referred to by Mr. Fairweather in his comments on security checks.
In conclusion, I urge Members of the House to adopt the motion before the House with respect to the provisions on review, security clearances and the complaints process. I await with interest the contribution of the Member for Ottawa Centre who, as I indicated, is in the House today. I am sure he will want to rise on behalf of his constituents to support this amendment which would enhance the rights of public servants whom he is supposed to be representing.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rise to speak on these motions, but after listening to the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), I would like to make one or two related points. I certainly will not use the full time at my disposal.
It strikes me as being hopelessly naive at best to consider that many people will be advised that they have been refused employment on grounds of security. That is just not the way it happens in the real world. That is a sign of the kind of academic legal mind that this place abounds with which puts it so totally out of touch with reality. I am not knocking people in the legal profession. There are good and bad people, but some have a little more experience out in the real world than others. It does not happen that way in Government or in industry. The reason you are given for not getting a job, whether in government or private industry, may be reasons that touch on security, whether it be personal conduct or something else. The Government will have total access to this information. It can go into private medical records, legal records and tax records and there may be a host of reasons, not all of them illegal, that hold people open to some suspicion. It may be some activity in their past when they may not even have considered that they would be entering the employ of the Government. Young people in their teens often will get into scrapes that will be revealed in medical or other types of records but should have no bearing on it. It has certainly been my experience, both as a union representative and steward prior to coming to Parliament and certainly since being a Member of Parliament, that from the number of grievances coming from citizens, union members or people trying to get employee status with government or industry, one simply does not get those kinds of answers. It is absolutely unrealistic to believe that any government, whether it is Liberal, Conservative or NDP, can say that the reason that someone did not get a job is that he or she did not get national security clearance. That does not happen at all and will never happen.
A few weeks ago I was talking to a woman from Ainsworth, British Columbia, in my constituency. She talked about having discovered a black list from the mining industry in a cabin attached to another outbuilding behind her property. The list dates back half a century and it contained over 5,000 names from the Province of British Columbia. Unfortunately, it was treated as garbage and was thrown in the fire. That is a tragedy because there is nothing I would have liked better than to be able to produce a document such as that, because it was indicative of why the government and industry attempt not to hire people for a number of reasons. If the present Government or a future government continues with this economic trend, social tensions will likely become greater and provide further grounds for suspicion and for denying people status, and such powers will be exercised with increasing frequency.
During the McCarthy era in the 1950s, we know of dozens of people in the United States who made a career of drawing up "do not hire" lists for companies and governments. Not only did they make a business of drawing up those lists, they really made their money by allowing people to buy their name off the list when they found out that it would be included. Some people made a virtual career of that practice.
That is the sort of practice we are opening ourselves up to here, unless we allow this review process to be more flexible in


what it is allowed to review. These are very narrow and unrealistic specifications laid out by the Government in these clauses. I hope changes are made because these clauses do not reflect reality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on Motion No. 99. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on Motion No. 99 stands deferred.
For the purposes of clarity the other motions in this subsection, Motions Nos. 100, 101 and 102 also stand deferred.
The next set of motions are Motions Nos. 108 and 109.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 108
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion No. 109
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 14 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall be conducted in private, unless the Review Committee orders
otherwise."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motions which are now before the House refer to Clause 48 of the Bill. One deletes Clause 48 and the second one indicates that it is solely within the purview of the review committee to decide whether it wishes to conduct its proceedings in private or publicly.
I suggest that there very well may be circumstances in which the review committee believes that a matter which is before it can in fact be discussed publicly without in any way compromising the security of the country. It may very well be that the review committee believes that such discussion would be in the interests of the country. It may be that it is discussing, for example, the revelation of wrongdoing on the part either of the political masters of the new service or indeed possibly on the part of the service itself.
I will not make lengthy representations with respect to this motion. I believe it is an important motion in the sense that it would enhance the powers of the review committee to determine its own procedure and decide for itself when it wishes to hold hearings in public.
Security Intelligence Service
As it stands now, its hands are tied. It is refused, under the provisions of the Bill as it is worded, the right to hold public hearings in any circumstances. This amendment will change that, and I hope that it will meet with the approval of Members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there was considerable discussion about this particular clause of the Bill in committee and I made many points in the record to which I would refer Hon. Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on Motion No. 108. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on Motion No. 108 stands deferred. For the purposes of clarity that also means that motion No. 109 is deferred.
The next set of motions are Nos. 113 and 114.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 113
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 114
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 52 by striking out lines 14 to 27 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"52.(1) The Review Committee shall on completion of an investigation in
relation to a complaint under section 41, provide the minister, the director and
the complainant with a report containing the findings of the investigation and
any recommendations that the Committee considers appropriate."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in light of Your Honour's findings on the yeas and nays, I am not sure whether I should shout during my remarks but I will certainly attempt to make myself heard. The motions which are now before the House deal with proposed Clause 52. This motion would require that the review committee, after having conducted an investigation into alleged or potential wrongdoing on the part of the security service, that is a review of a complaint under Section 41, should provide the Minister, the director and the complainant with a full report, not merely the truncated with the recom-


Security Intelligence Service
mendations of the review committee, but all of the findings of the committee.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, on that basis that this motion is one which should be adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).


Ian Deans: What in heavens name is going on over there?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, again on this clause, I would urge the Hon. Member to bear in mind that the reason the report is not required to be made with all the recommendations to the complainant is simply that the contents of the report may recommend changes to the system of security or may name sources or targets or contain other recommendations important for the director to know to improve the operation of the service but not appropriate to be made known to an ordinary citizen.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have two points, Mr. Speaker. The Government is not really interested in having accountability at all. If it were, the Government would accept some of these amendments and we would have a security service, not a Big Brother.
My second point directed to you, Sir, in a good natured way is that maybe it is difficult for you to hear all these nays and therefore you hear the lesser noise of the yeas. I propose that we change positions with the Members on the other side, which would give you a better hearing of the nays. Of course, if we change positions, we could nix this bad Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I do not know whether that last comment was a point of order, but I will try to pay much more attention to the volume of the yeas and the nays.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Pearson tried that in 1962.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on Motion No. 113. The motion is moved by Mr. Robinson (Burnaby) seconded by Mr. Ogle, that Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. For purposes of clarity, Motion No. 114 is also deferred.
The next grouping of motions is Motions Nos. 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123.


Svend Johannes Robinson: 
Vincent Martin Dantzer: Motion No. 123
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding immediately after line 20 at page 24 the following:
"56. The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons or of the House of Commons and Senate as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: We have now come to debate on the grouping. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) will be along shortly. One of his motions is presently being debated and it is a motion on which he spoke in committee. It is rather unfortunate that he is not here at this point, but I trust that his


colleagues are trying to find him to make sure he is in the House on this most important question.
What we are dealing with at this point in the debate is the question of parliamentary oversight and parliamentary review of the actions of the proposed civilian security service.
There are three essential elements in this legislation. The first is the potential mandate of the service. I have argued already that it is far too broad, that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have broken no law whatsoever who can be targeted under the provisions of this legislation. The second is the powers of the new agency. They are sweeping powers, unprecedented under any democratic society. The third essential element is the question of what type of accountability or oversight should govern. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the McDonald Commission, which studied this question for some four years, strongly recommended that if a new civilian security service is to have enhanced powers-and the powers which the McDonald Commission recommended were far less than those recommended by the Minister-it is essential that there be a parliamentary oversight committee in order that elected Members of all Parties, from all parts of the country, might have an opportunity to ensure that the proposed security service does not become a political instrument, a tool which can be abused in the hands of the government of the day. That proposal for a parliamentary oversight committee is one which is, in my view and in the view of many of the witnesses, indeed virtually all of the witnesses who appeared before the parliamentary committee, essential.
This is not a radical new idea, Mr. Speaker. It is not something which has not been tried and tried successfully in other jurisdictions. I would note that in the United States both Houses have full congressional oversight. There is a committee of the House of Representatives and there is a committee of the Senate. They have complete scrutiny of the policies and operations of the intelligence community in that country. That has worked very effectively. In addition, each and every member of Congress, all 435 members of the House of Representatives and all 100 Senators, have a right to full and untrammelled access to all documents in the possession of the committee, including line by line documents with respect to the budget. In the history since 1977 of the creation of those committees there has never been a single documented leak of information. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) says that we cannot trust Members of Parliament with this kind of information.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Where did I ever say that?


Svend Johannes Robinson: "They might blab", those were the words of the Solicitor General.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I never said that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: He said that Members of Parliament might blab. The Solicitor General is suggesting that the
Security Intelligence Service
Government is not prepared to trust elected representatives of the people. That is shameful.


John Leslie Evans: Oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Enjoy it while you can, John. Michael is coming soon.
Professor Peter Russell, to whom the Minister has referred on a number of occasions and cited with approval, indicated that in his view it was essential that there be the establishment of a joint parliamentary oversight committee on security and intelligence. He noted that it was essential, if there was to be full and effective scrutiny of the operations of the service, that Members of Parliament be involved.
What is it about this Government which makes it so afraid to subject the operations of this service to scrutiny by an all-Party parliamentary committee? What makes the Government so distrustful of elected representatives of the people of the country?
I put it to Hon. Members of the House that had there been such a committee in existence during the 1970s, many of the abuses which took place by the RCMP security service would have never occurred. The experience in other jurisdictions with similar committees has been that the mere existence of a watchdog committee of elected representatives served to ensure that no illegalities were attempted. That is what is proposed in this series of motions, and that is what I would hope would be adopted by the House.
The concept of the parliamentary oversight committee is one of the provisions contained in this grouping of motions. I will not go on at great length as I know some of my colleagues want to speak on it. I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) in his usual manner wants to speak on it. However, there are a number of other provisions in this group of motions which I should like to draw to the attention of the House in the limited time available to me. For example, the motions attempts to strengthen the review committee process. What it comes down to is that Parliament does not trust Parliament; in other words, if Hon. Members of the House vote against these motions, they will be saying that they do not even trust themselves to provide effective oversight of the operations of the security service, that is a pretty sad commentary. These motions would ensure at least some semblance of credibility in the review process, for example, by permitting members of the review committee to submit minority reports to Parliament. As it stands now, the review committee will be appointed by the Government. Yes, it will be after consultation, but in the end it can appoint anyone it wants. If we look at the record of the Government, we know it is very likely that it will be friends of the Government, friends of the Liberal Party who will be appointed. At least if there were provisions for minority reports spelled out in the Bill, it would ensure that if a member of the committee felt strongly that Parliament's attention should be drawn to a particular matter, he or she would be able to do so. However, in committee government Members denied that possibility, further weakening the oversight and review provisions of the Bill.


Security Intelligence Service
Also, this group of motions would ensure that the review committee, and the review committee alone, would be able to determine what it reports to Parliament. Motion No. 122 sets out the following clearly:
The Review Committee shall have full authority to determine the contents of statements and reports referred to in subsection (1) of this section.
This amendment is essential if Parliament is to have even the slightest shred of confidence in the operations of the review process. The only role for Parliament which is left, after the Minister rejected the recommendations for parliamentary oversight by many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, is to review the reports submitted to it by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. If these reports have to be laundered and doctored by an official appointed by the Solicitor General before they can be submitted to Parliament, what kind of oversight is that?
I will make a prediction which I think will be borne out in the years to come. Parliament, after the passage of this Bill, will have no more knowledge whatsoever than it has today about the operations and the policies of the security service in this country. That is a disgrace in a democratic country.
In conclusion, I urge Members of the House to adopt these motions. I urge them to adopt the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South which calls for parliamentary oversight. I, on behalf of my Party, proposed a similar motion, which was ruled out of order. That motion is an essential one, as are the other ones in this package, if there is to be even a semblance of meaningful oversight. If not, Parliament, the House and the Minister will be saying that they do not trust the elected representatives of the people of the country. That is a shameful denial of effective oversight of the operations of this service.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I want to commence my remarks by thanking the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for speaking on my motion. I was momentarily detained outside the House. In his usual courteous way he assisted me.
Although the motion stands in my name, Hon. Members of my Party and of the New Democratic Party have exactly the same view about the necessity of establishing a parliamentary review commitee. What is incredible is that there is a notion in the country that the last thing one should ever do is to involve Members of Parliament in anything which has to do with substance or with the fundamental rights and liberties of the Canadian people. That is not a notion which is particularly peculiar to the Government. It is a notion of other people in the community, some of whom write editorials. Those same people are the first to prate, rant and preach about why Members of Parliament did not protect their liberties. I hope they take a lesson.
I do not mind being preached at by these people, but they do not have to get elected. We do. My answer to those outside government-and I will deal with the Government in a minute-who write editorials indicating that it would be completely wrong to have a parliamentary review committee, is
that, frankly, they do not trust the parliamentary system any more than does the Government.
Now I should like to refer to my hon. friends on the government side. Some of them are friends, others are honourable.


John Leslie Evans: Do you mean your friends are not honourable?


John Allen Fraser: Where I am likely to go, most of my friends will have some difficulty establishing their honour.
I want to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) who just interrupted me, in a courteous way, why he does not get up and tell us why we should not have a parliamentary review committee. He has a lot of views. I believe he was trained in economics. I got a first class in economics once, and I have never trusted an economist since. Now that he is in the world of politics, I would like him to tell us why he would not trust a review committee of this House of Commons. Some of his colleagues would be on it. What is the strange notion of the parliamentary majority, the so-called Liberal Party of Canada, that does not trust the representatives of the people?
Liberalism in politics got its start from the term "liberales", a Spanish insurgent group in the 1830s. They caught the imagination of the intellectuals of western Europe. The name Liberalism came to be used to describe those forces in restrictive and autocratic regimes that were fighting for the right of the people and the representatives of the people to be heard.
I remind my friend from Ottawa Centre that I not only studied economics but I studied some political history as well. He is a distinguished Member of this House with fine academic qualifications, although perhaps with a short historical memory. I ask him what is wrong with having those whom the people elect forming a review committee on security. It is not wrong in the great republic to the south of us where there is one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives. Why would it be wrong here?
Something that has gone wrong with the British parliamentary system under the years of Liberal political stewardship-I did not say philosophical Liberal stewardship because that is not what we have had-is that the Liberal party has taken advantage of the fact that it is a system which is extremely powerful and dictatorial. It is only held in constraint by convention and attitude, also the determination of some Members of all Parties to break with the monolithic dictates of the rigid suffocation of the party system in this country. Also, it depends on the adequacy, intelligence and imagination of the media to report what is really going on, despite the smoke and mirrors that appear to be the side show in this House most of the time. I ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre what is wrong with trusting those whom the people have sent here?
The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) is in the Chamber. He is well and favourably known to me, as is the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. The Hon. Member for


Parkdale-High Park has spoken with passion in this House on the rights of minority groups within the varied, exciting and fascinating composites that make up our Canadian nation. He has spoken with great eloquence about what had happened in the country from which his people come, Poland. Why does he not get up and tell us why we cannot have in Canada what he would wish for his former countrymen, his relatives, friends and that magnificently vital freedom-loving nation from which he comes? I ask these questions seriously.
I also see the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) in the Chamber. I do not think he is sitting in his seat, but it does not matter.


Mr. Fisher:: I have been put back here by the PM.


John Allen Fraser: I will not comment about where you have been put. I certainly will not be rude by suggesting where you ought to be put. You are sitting upon a seat, even if it is not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I invite the Hon. Member to address the Chair.


John Allen Fraser: As usual, Your Honour is absolutely right. You indicate I have one more minute.
Speaking about seats, I remind Hon. Members that it was once said by an irreverent poet that a politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man. It would not be a bad idea if some Members on the Government side got up off that part, described by that rather irreverent word, upon which they are sitting and explain to this House why there should not be a review committee made up of elected members who are sent here by the public of Canada. I invite Government Members to answer my request and tell us why that is such a dangerous notion in a parliamentary democracy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I interpret the remarks and the request of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) to be rhetorical, because he assiduously attended all the meetings of the committee which reviewed all of these clauses. I do not think there were any of these amendments that were not proposed and moved in committee. He would have had the answers which I and others gave during the course of the hearings, giving reasons why a parliamentary review committee is not considered appropriate, reasons which commended themselves to the Senate committee, which included some distinguished representatives of his own Party, who agreed with the system of review and did not propose that there should be a parliamentary committee engaging in oversight.
My colleagues on this side have had the opportunity to read the Senate committee report which did not favour a parliamentary review and to hear the arguments which I gave in the House of Commons committee against parliamentary review. He can take it that we are satisfied that the review committee can provide effective oversight. I remind him that the congressional oversight committee in the United States, which Members opposite view as such a desirable feature, does not have access to the documents and the individuals that the review
Security Intelligence Service
committee will be able to call on. Under the proposed legislation, the review committee can call on any one who works for the service, can obtain any documents of the service and can obtain any information. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South knows that in the case of the United States congressional oversight committee, the only information to which they have access are reports and statements from the directors of the agencies within the intelligence community. The proposed review committee, in other words, has the capacity, and it is the expectation of the Government that it will engage in a far more profound review than the Congressional committee in the United States has the authority to do, or is capable of doing.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), I have to say a few words.
The Solicitor General says the review committee that will be appointed under the provisions of this Bill will be superior to a similar review committee in the United States because the Canadian review committee will have access to all documents it wishes to see, while the review committee in the United States which consists of members appointed by the Senate and the House of Representatives does not have such access. The difference, however, is that the review committee in the United States consists of elected members.
When, as happened very recently, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency was less than forthright and less than honest, those elected members of the review committee raised hell. They did not raise hell privately, Mr. Speaker, they raised hell publicly. I say to the Solicitor General that we on this side have no confidence that the kind of tame cats that he and his Government will likely appoint to this review committee will do anything privately, let alone raise hell publicly, if things go wrong.
There at least two countries which I can name, West Germany and the United States, both of which are much larger countries than Canada, both of which are much more involved in world politics than Canada, and both of which have tremendous military and political problems, that have review committees made up of elected representatives. If those countries can have such review committees, there should be no reason why we cannot have such a review committee here, except for the very simple reason that in this democratic country we have been governed by members of one political Party for more than 50 out of the last 60 years. Obviously, that Government and that Party believe they have some God-given right to always form the Government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We get elected in these elections.


David Orlikow: Yes, elected, and they obviously expect to continue to be elected.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is up to the Canadian people, that is not up to you.


Security Intelligence Service


David Orlikow: That is right. I am saying to the Minister that, from his point of view, the Canadian people some time in the future, and perhaps very soon, may make a mistake and elect another kind of Government. Then the review committee will be appointed by a Government that is not Liberal and different members will sit on the review committee. Then the Solicitor General, if he is still around-which I doubt-and his colleagues will find that they will be as frozen out from what is really going on as are members on this side of the House.
I would suggest to the Minister that he ought to keep in mind that there will come a time when he will have as much difficulty getting information and seeing documents on which important public issues are decided as we do. Then, Mr. Speaker, he will begin to understand why members of the Opposition and ordinary citizens of Canada, who are often adversely affected by the work of the intelligence organization, have so many objections to the kinds of proposals which are being made today.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address Motion No. 123 moved by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). This motion takes a position that I think responds to many of the misgivings about which we have heard from the Canadian people regarding what this agency might be investigating and the manner in which it is likely to carry out its investigations.
This legislation suggests a type of organization which is relatively new within the structure of the Canadian Government. I am delighted that the Hon. Member for Vancouver South brought forward a motion which would provide a means of examining, not the day-to-day operations of the agency but the general thrust of its activities and administration. The motion reads:
-The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons-
And it goes on. It is vitally important that such an amendment be accepted and that a committee be assigned the task of examining the activities of the agency.
During various discussions, in the press and when we have gone to our constituencies, we have heard it asked why the Government is proposing that an agency be set up that is separate from the RCMP and charged with the responsibility of collecting intelligence on security matters relating to threats to the security of Canada. We also hear questions about the manner in which it might be conducting its operations.
We dealt with some of the clauses of this Bill, but I am not sure whether amendments have been made to all of them. I have not been able to attend all of the discussions that have occurred during report stage.
In Clause 21 on page 11, and more particularly on page 12, we find that the agency, having set forth a good reason to a judge, may obtain from a judge a warrant authorizing the persons to whom it is directed, being members of the agency, to intercept any communication or obtain any information, record or document and, for that purpose-listen to this, Mr. Speaker-to enter any place, to search for, remove or return and to instal, maintain and remove any thing. Of course, when thinking of installing something, one thinks of listening devices. These are intrusions on the rights of citizens of this country, intrusions to which the citizens are certainly not accustomed. I hope the citizens will always have misgivings about such intrusions.
Therefore, it seems to me to be most important that there be a means for this House to review the actions of the service, not necessarily in open committee. I am not suggesting that that review be done in open committee. However, I am suggesting that there be a committee which will review these various activities and which will know just what it is the agency is doing, how it is doing those things and how this particular legislation is being administered.
Gross affronts to the rights of Canadians could occur in the course of the duties of this service, probably due simply to an excess of zeal in the carrying on of its activities. If a committee of this House were empowered to examine those activities, it would in my estimation and in the estimation of most Canadians enable Canadians to feel more secure. I am not questioning the fact that we do need some sort of a security intelligence agency of one sort or another and I would prefer that it be a part of the RCMP.
If there is a need for an agency of this sort, there ought to be a public body that will examine how it is carrying out its functions. It would be reassuring to Canadians if such an authority were given to the House of Commons, or to the House of Commons and the Senate as proposed in this motion. Such authority would include the authority to receive reports from the agency, to examine those reports and many other things.
We have only so much time to deal with this Bill. We are now discussing it under closure. It is very possible that this legislation will not be given the proper review before it is enacted into law as a result of the authorization of the new Leader of the Liberal Party. He has not raised a finger to suggest that it ought not to be passed into law. That seem obvious to me. Therefore, his connivance in the whole operation must be admitted.
[DOT]
We are not being given a full opportunity to debate this legislation, or to obtain responses from our constituents, the media and specialists in this area. Sure, many witnesses appeared before the committee, but now that the matter is being examined in greater detail there is an opportunity for public response to the matters we are considering. I feel that it is absolutely and utterly essential, partly because of the limited debate proposals which have been brought down, and also because of the newness of this type of legislation, that this House should be empowered to examine the administration of this Bill and bring forward amendments. Those amendments might tighten up the administration, or they might broaden the powers of the proposed service.


The committee which is proposed is a permanent committee, which I think is most appropriate. The committee should be permanent and it should have the legislation referred to it. It should be cognizant of the manner in which this legislation is being administered. I am worried, and I know a lot of people are worried, about the powers which will in all likelihood infringe upon the rights of Canadian citizens, justly or unjustly. When unjust intrusions into the privacy of individuals takes place, there must be some way in which those individuals can secure redress for the grievance which they have suffered. The review committee is more of a ministerial review. But, the parliamentary committee is a review of a much broader nature. The parliamentary committee would be concerned with the administrative provisions as laid down in the legislation.
This House is not being given an appropriate opportunity to discuss the legislation at length. Nor is the governing Party taking part in this debate, with the exception of the occasional intervention by the Minister. I would like someone on the other side of the House to rise to the challenge of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South and explain why this House, meeting in open session or in camera, should not be empowered to examine how this Bill would be administered and whether there have been infractions of our commonly-held traditions of freedom of speech and actions in this country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the part of the Bill which we are debating now concerns the amendments which propose a parliamentary review committee of the new secret service. It seems to me that this is an absolutely essential part of the Bill.
I did not attend the meetings of the Justice Committee. Neither did most of the Canadians who, perhaps, are watching this debate on television. Therefore, it is not good enough for the Minister to do as he did a few moments ago, when he indicated that the answers to the questions posed by the Hon. Member-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am sorry you were not at the meetings.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Do not say you are sorry I was not there. Answer the question now in the House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I spoke on it already.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the Minister could have one of his colleagues speak on it. The Minister told us that we should have been at the justice committee meetings. To be fair, he offered a defence as to why there is no parliamentary review. But, I think it was a pretty weak defence. If that was the whole defence, it was pretty weak.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is much more.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister said that the review procedure, as I understand it, includes some retired Privy Councillors. It is not a parliamentary review procedure. It was recommended by a Senate committee. To put it mildly, perhaps the Senators do not appreciate what it is like to meet constituents, people on the street, ordinary people, because they have never been
Security Intelligence Service
elected. The committee was chaired by Senator Pitfield, an example of the kind of closely-knit bureaucratic, elitist group which surrounds the out-going Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-the Trudeau group. It is the very kind of Government which the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), some of his friends and some of the Liberals who attended the convention were protesting. Turner people were saying that they would not like to see those kinds of things in government.
The Solicitor General said in his speech today that the United States committee, which has parliamentary access with a Senate committee and a House of Representatives committee, is made up of people who had to go through the battle of being elected and who are responsible to the electorate. They are democrats with a small "d".
The Solicitor General said that the U.S. committee did not have access to the reports which he is recommending the review committee should have. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said, recently the U.S. committee has been pretty effective. When I was in the United States a few weeks ago, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan resigned from the Senate Committee on Intelligence because the director of the CIA had not been forthcoming about what was going on with regard to the mining of the harbours in Nicaragua. The director had to come back with his tail between his legs and apologize. Senator Moynihan then returned to the committee. That is a pretty effective committee.
What are we going to have in Canada? Members can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it former Privy Councillors will make up the committee. There will be the likes of Mitchell Sharp on the committee. There is nothing wrong with Mitchell Sharp, but the problem is that he is long gone from democratic politics and therefore he will look at things in a very pro-government way. Or we will have senile Privy Councillors, old fellows who have been around a long time? The Government will put them on the committee as tokenism.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Do you think all senior citizens are senile?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Do I think what?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Do you think all senior citizens are senile?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, I do not think all senior citizens are senile. I am referring to the type of Privy Councillors you will be putting on the committee. Why not put the committee in the House of Commons, as do other countries such as West Germany and the United States? What is the Government afraid of? That question has not been answered.
We believe in freedom and parliamentary democracy on this side of the House. I do not understand Liberal back-benchers, many of whom are committed to being socially progressive. They say they are committed. They are commited when other countries are concerned, but not here. Why have the backbenchers not come forward and grasped this? Perhaps, the Liberal convention interfered and they did not have a chance


Security Intelligence Service
to realize the extent of the Bill. In choosing the most important thing a country can have, a secret service, can they really be serious about not having parliamentary review? The McDonald Commission recommended parliamentary review. There is parliamentary review in other countries. Can they really be serious in saying that this kind of set up will protect the rights of people? It is only window dressing. If Liberal Members have spoken about upgrading the rights of Parliament and individual Members of Parliament, then why not trust individual Members of Parliament with the review of some of these problems?
When the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) were speaking, I was thinking about the area of Boundary Road and 49th Avenue in Vancouver. East of that area is the riding of the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Southwest of that area is the riding of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South. Northwest of that area is my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. All three of us have risen tonight to demand parliamentary scrutiny. All the people in that area are working class people. They live in small homes or apartments. These people, I feel, still trust Parliament but they do not trust a Government which has gone a long way away from them. These people are not subversives, nor likely to be. However, they may belong to a church group which supports, for example, aid to Nicaragua, and they are liable to be targeted. They may send their children to university, and while in university their children may espouse a progressive cause, such as not testing the Cruise missile. Those children may have their phones bugged or may be targeted. This can happen because it has happened to many people.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is why we are introducing these controls.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If it can seize the membership list of the PQ, it can seize the membership of a left wing club in the campus of UBC.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why do you think we are introducing these controls?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Would the Solicitor General listen to me for a moment? People may be in a peace march in Vancouver and may be investigated or targeted for that. Let us hope they will not be, and the chances are, perhaps, that they will not be. However, I would not count on it by looking at past actions. What happens if something goes wrong with the system? Philippe Gigantes, the Senator, wrote an article about things going wrong where some senior civil servants in this town were victimized by the security service. If something goes wrong, who is to review it? This is an agency which is responsible to no one, an agency which is appointed by the Government, and God knows what kind of Government we will have in the future in this country.
What are Liberal Members afraid of? Are they afraid to trust parliamentary democracy, Members of Parliament and themselves in a proper committee setting with the proper rules? They do that in the United States because Americans
believe in democracy. We have often criticized the United States, God knows, lots of times on this side of the House, but one has to admire its faith in freedom and democracy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: And the operations of the CIA?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: But this system, Mr. Solicitor General, is a wrong system. You are going against the trend of parliamentary democracy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You are happy with the CIA?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister, with this Bill, makes Reagan look like a civil libertarian, my colleague says, but I will not call the Solicitor General names.
Let me put it this way. There has been no good reason advanced tonight in the House of Commons why we cannot have a parliamentary committee looking at this agency. They have it in other countries. It was recommended by the McDonald Commission. The present system is inadequate. The Senate recommendation does not carry a heck of a lot of weight. I say that the weight of the evidence and the argument is that we should have a parliamentary oversight. I challenge Hon. Members opposite to vote for these amendments.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, as these amendments have come forward, the Opposition has thrown a lifeline or a lifejacket to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). Had he grabbed it he would have been able to pull himself out of the mess which he has gotten himself into. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that this Solicitor General will become known as the infamous Solicitor General who imposed upon the Canadian people this very flawed Bill to provide a secret service security force for the Canadian people. If only the Solicitor General would recognize that this is now a golden opportunity for him to get out of this mess!
I would like to read the motion to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Canadian people. I am sure that anyone who hears this particular motion read will agree that it is a very reasonable motion. Motion No. 123 reads:
The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons or of the House of Commons and Senate as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
Surely, that is the reason why people send Members of Parliament to this House. They want their elected representatives to watch over government activities. They want them to review the administration. They want them to look at the provisions and the operations of every department and every function which this Government undertakes. Therefore, what on earth is wrong with this particular provision? I am sure that no Canadian citizen who would believe that is other than a reasonable provision. If the Solicitor General would only try to understand what we are trying to do, I am sure he would grab the lifeline. It is perfectly apparent.
I have been trying to ascertain why this particular Minister is pushing this legislation through at this particular time when


there is so much more important social legislation before this House. There must be a reason. I believe if we go to the Auditor General's report of the Solicitor General's Department, we will begin to see why the Minister is pushing this legislation through. The Solicitor General has spent millions upon millions of dollars for a transmission committee, rented space, and so on. He has wasted millions of dollars to put this new force into effect. I gather he feels he would look very silly if the House closed down at the end of this month and the whole summer went by without this particular Bill being passed. The first Bill he brought forth was so bad that he could not possibly hope to get it confirmed, and he is very worried about this one.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who spoke previously, asked the Solicitor General why he opposed the insertion of Clause 56, as amended by Motion No. 123. The Minister did not really give the answer he gave in committee. I would like to give the House that answer. As I understand it, and the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, first of all the Minister said that the whole Act is good and should not be touched because it is better than what we now have. But we have nothing now. The Minister said, "Well, isn't it nice that we have this Bill now? But don't touch this Bill. It is the best thing we have ever had. Furthermore, I have changed it a little for you". But that evades and avoids the whole issue.
The point is that we are trying to make this piece of paper better. That is why we are here. That is why we spent so many hours in committee. That is why we are asking the Government why they will not accept any of these suggestions.
The second point the Minister makes is that we cannot have a parliamentary review committee because then the Hon. Members of Parliament on that committee might find out secrets which they would feel morally obligated to tell to their constituents. If there was ever a more ridiculous reason for not having Members of Parliament on that review committee, I have never heard it.
The American system, as we know, has a complete oversight committee composed of elected representatives. The United States has never had any problems-at least none that were made public-about receiving secret information, and there has never been the problem of that committee revealing any information which would affect the security of the country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell this House in much more detail-I am sure the House would give him permission if he so desired-why he opposes the parliamentary review committee. I understand that he has already spoken on this clause. However, I for one would be quite willing to have him state his case once more for the record. Certainly, I believe, his constituents in the next election are going to ask him why the parliamentary review committee was turned down by this House. I know that is something my constituents are going to ask me. I feel it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell this House now, at this time, why in fact he is refusing what is a very rational and reasonable clause; that is, for the House of Parliament to set up a watchdog committee to oversee this particular security
Security Intelligence Service
force, which could be a real intrusion on the rights and liberties of Canadians everywhere in this country.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to support this amendment before us. I very much appreciate the action of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) in introducing it. The amendment is very plain. It reads, and I quote:
The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons or of the House of Commons and Senate as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
It is a very simple, plain and essential motion, Mr. Speaker.
What I have discovered in three years here is that Ottawa is a long, long way from Canada. The consciousness of this place treats Canada, not just as if it was a foreign country, but as if it was on another continent or in another world. We think we should make all the decisions here without hearing from the rest of the world. The Government is even further removed. It wants to make all the decisions without hearing from Parliament.
In Spadina, we have many people who are professionally educated and employed. They are very capable of studying these matters, but with limited time since none of them is employed in doing this very work, except for me, and perhaps a Senator, if he still lives there. There are many people in small business, many people working at manual trade, and many with very little formal education. The majority come from other countries and have a varied and interesting basis of political awareness. They are all concerned with their freedom. They all want a hand in watchdogging their own freedom. The principal way of making that available to every one of them as a citizen of this country is by his or her vote in electing a Member of Parliament. They expect that vote to be the instrument by which, among other things, they will guard their freedom. They hold their Member of Parliament responsible for defending their freedom, because they do not trust this Government, and they have good reason not to.
I will not go into the long history of acts of untrustworthiness, I will simply refer to the remarkable statement the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) made a few minutes ago. He told us that the watchdog committees of the American Congress have access to even less information than is proposed for this committee here. What nonsense. It is well known that the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives have the right to call anyone as a witness, and they do. They have the right to require them to bring any document, and they do.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is not true.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: They have the right to examine their budget, and they do. One example of that which became very public recently was when they hauled the Director of the CIA before the committee and demanded that he tell them what he was doing in connection with the mining of the harbours in Nicara-


Security Intelligence Service
gua. When he told them they bawled him out for it. I assume the Solicitor General is trying to speak through television to the Canadian people to say that the American Congress and Senate do not have the power to examine those things. Well, he is saying something that is patently untrue. I do not propose to suggest that he is deliberately misleading the House, since that would apparently offend him on account of my Anglican religion, to which he referred before. Therefore I must conclude that as the Solicitor General pushing through his police state Bill he is astonishingly ignorant in his own field of expertise. Imagine getting up to give us supposedly expert advice and being as mistaken as he was a few minutes ago. That is why the people of Canada do not trust him or his Government.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, if the Government chooses not to accept the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), it will simply be publicly announcing that the House of Commons is not what it was intended to be; namely, the instrument of the people through their elected representatives. Failure to accept this fact is an expression of contempt by the Minister for the trustworthiness of Members of the House of Commons.
His remarks with respect to the capabilities of the committees of the U.S. Congress are certainly not in accordance with the facts. Let us assume for a moment that they do not have total access to every single activity of every agent of the CIA. They have had the opportunity to demean directors of the CIA, and they have been replaced as a result of meetings of committees of the U.S. Congress. We, however, will have no such capability.
As I stand here I look upon the mace, the sacred symbol of the political capabilities of a democratically elected House of Commons. It is a symbol of the fact that you will be defended by arms, if necessary, against anyone who would intrude upon the deliberations of the elected body known as the House of Commons.
There are no intrusions and we have not had to use weapons. Neither have we had to call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to defend this elected body. But we may yet find ourselves in a position where we wish that we had used arms at some point to deflect a government which trusts no one. Nothing could better illustrate its contempt of Parliament.
Do they mean to tell us that the Solicitor General and Liberal Members cannot trust the veterans sitting in this House? They put their lives on the line for this country. What about the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) who so magnificently portrayed the efforts of Members of this House and other young people of that day in defending the democracy we are supposed to represent? Is he not trustworthy to sit on a committee and hear evidence regarding the security forces of this country? What about the lawyers who are sworn peace officers? Are they not worthy of trust as members of a committee to evaluate and judge the security forces we are appointing? What about the former Cabinet Ministers who may or may not have been veterans or lawyers? Are they not worthy of trust? Has this country not put its trust in those
people as they sat in Cabinet? Are they not trustworthy? Are they going to babble, as I believe the Solicitor General said? If they are, then we are certainly in a defunct society. We have had the biscuit.
I want to say to you, Sir, that as I campaign in the next election I am going to lay the blame for this on the new Leader of the Liberal Party. We know what the degenerate system was under the old leader, and we are now getting the establishment, as was so thoroughly described by the press as they summarized the results of the leadership convention.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Good luck.


Fred Alward McCain: It will be good luck, my friend, because my constituents are not as ignorant as some of those who sit on your right.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Are they as impolite as you are?


Fred Alward McCain: Stand up and speak for your country! Don't speak against it as you are doing now. Treat it with sincerity of purpose and with resolution, not with contempt. Do not treat it with contempt, you and that-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Order.


Fred Alward McCain: I say through you, Mr. Speaker, that that type of behaviour is what has brought contempt to this House, and it has been led and fed and guided by the activities of the Government on the right. That mace, a symbol of protection for you and all Members of this House, is no longer a symbol of democracy and the right of the people to defend themselves against their government or against insurrection. The insurrection, Sir, is taking place to your right. It is an insurrection against democracy and its structures, a democracy which is now well into its eighth century since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. We have put the machinery in reverse as we pass legislation of this nature.
I am one of the Members of this House of Commons who is thoroughly, completely and totally insulted by this legislation. I am not trusted, even in camera, to be a part of the conduct of the business of the security of this nation which I love and for which, though I did not get into battle, I signed up and put my life on the line to defend.
I have contempt for a Solicitor General, a government, a Prime Minister and a new leader who allows this kind of legislation to be passed which makes the House of Commons untrustworthy to conduct the business of the people. There are vehicles which can be utilized for those who become untrustworthy in the land. They should be applied to any member of any House of Commons or Senate committee who may be privy to the secrets of this land in relation to the security of the country. Those things should be applied to the ones who babble. However, the initial trust must be placed in the hands of those who are elected to govern the country.


*


This is putting the security of the land at the disposition of political manipulators. It is giving the opportunity for pure partisan selection of the only committees which will have any view of the behaviour of the security system which we are setting up. We do not even have the confidence that we have been able to place in that loyal force of police officers known as the RCMP. We are now relegated to having a civilian force put in place which will be examined by political appointees of the government of the day. I do not care what government is in place. It should not have that authority. The security of the land and law and order should be the responsibility of, and should be extended to the elected Members of the people of Canada. I am not concerned about anybody from that committee babbling. If the Government uses judgment so poor that it appoints a babbler whom they cannot trust, the security agency is incompetent before it gets off the ground.
How many of us in the House have directly or indirectly already been evaluated as a security risk for one reason or another? This is a condemnation of the society and the people over whom you preside as Speaker in the House. For the life of me I cannot comprehend how the democrats of this country, those who love democracy, have remained so silent as they watch this force go into the backrooms of the Party in power for the day. To me it is incredible that they will accept that. If they do, it is because of the contempt in which we are held. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once said that a Member of Parliament is a nobody when he is 100 feet away from the House of Commons. That is the opinion which the House has extended for itself through its agent, the Prime Minister of Canada. This is the exclamation mark behind that remark of the Prime Minister who did not want, does not comprehend, and never did respect those of us who were elected but were not Prime Minister.
This Act reminds me of another Act. The Auditor General is supposed to give facts to the Public Accounts Committee. He is supposed to be a check and balance upon the expenditures, allocations and use of money in general. However, if you sit on the Public Accounts Committee you will find that he has made a report. I trust totally that he will have accumulated the necessary evidence to make the necessary accusations and to put the necessary subject matters before the Public Accounts Committee. Having accumulated that evidence, it goes into a file and cannot be withdrawn. It can only be withdrawn if someone tells you exactly what question you should ask. The Auditor General is not authorized to give you that information.
The House of Commons has plodded along in the dark, depending upon someone slipping a little piece of private information unsolicited. Perhaps one would call it a leak. The Public Accounts Committee of the House has not been able to function as it was intended to function. Its intended function was to look after the expenditures of the land.
The House of Commons is now not going to be allowed to function with respect to the security of the land in the private force. We in the House of Commons may be veterans, lawyers
Security Intelligence Service
or teachers, but we are Canadians all. We are not supposed to have enough interest in the well-being of our country to be trusted by the Government.
If this motion is turned down by the Government it will be a reflection upon the present Prime Minister and the one who aspires to be Prime Minister, because he is now considered to be the boss of the Liberal Party. If he is boss, between now and tomorrow night this amendment should be adopted.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to speak for the first time on Bill C-9. I will try to express as simply as I can my concern about the clause we are debating now. I must relate to the situation of Members of Parliament going through their constituencies and talking to their constituents. Concern is expressed by the constituents that Members of Parliament really do not have enough say in the operation of Parliament and Government. When one sees the kind of legislation we are dealing with this evening in the last hour of report stage debate, one can fully appreciate the concern of the constituents.
The Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) is simply seeking an opportunity for Members of Parliament in the Government and in Opposition, and for Members of the Senate, to have some say in a committee that is to be set up to review the operations of the changes that are brought about by Bill C-9, an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto.
More simply put, that means that if someone, perhaps wrongly, is accused of some act of subversion or an act against the best interests of the country, and this committee is called into place to protect that person, the committee that will be dealing with the issue is nothing more and nothing less than a group of porkbarrel committee members appointed by the Government in power that day.
If that person who may be wrongly accused of actions wishes to bring his or her case to an elected Member of Parliament, that opportunity is excluded because the information is not available to the elected representatives in the House. It is not available in the presentation of information at the committee level because Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have been excluded from an opportunity to listen to the constituent who may be wrongly accused of an act. All that we as Conservatives in Opposition are asking for is an opportunity to establish a parliamentary oversight committee to review, on a permanent basis, the administration provisions and operations of this oversight committee.
I am sure that a lot of people in the country thought that after the last big Liberal leadership convention we had a new Liberal Party Leader who was going to do three things, as I thought he had assured the people of Canada. He was going to make Parliament more responsive to the people. He was going to consider the interests of the West in whatever actions might be taken, and he was going to have a more open Government.
However, what we have in reality today as we stand in our places debating this issue is an ignoring of the interest of the


Security Intelligence Service
West by diluting the importance of the RCMP. The Government has taken responsibilities from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and is turning them over to a government appointed committee, while excluding Members of Parliament from representing their constituencies and having any input.
This is no different from what it was before. We have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who minimizes the importance of Parliament. The new Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, by virtue of bringing in closure and limiting debate on this important piece of legislation, is doing no more and no less than the old school. We are back where we were.
We were currently dealing with a piece of legislation and a proposed amendment to it, through a motion by the Member for Vancouver South. That amendment is supported by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and by the League of Rights. It is supported by the Canadian Council of Churches and it is even supported by Professor Peter Russell of the University of Toronto who was the solicitor for the McDonald Commission.
I know there are members on the government side in the House tonight who have stood up on numerous occasions in the House to speak out very vocally in support of responsible and representative government. They speak on behalf of minority groups quite often. This is simply a case of a piece of legislation that removes the protection of Canadian citizens from the scrutiny of Members of Parliament. Not one member from the government side has spoken in support of having parliamentary representation on this review committee-


Mr. Foster:: Tell us about it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -some from the Senate and some from the House of Commons.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Tell us about it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I hear gentlemen on the government side saying "Tell us about it". I would like to hear them tell us why they are opposed to having some parliamentary representation on this review committee? If there is a good reason, why have we not heard it?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: But you did not go to the committee.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: None of these other organizations support the Government in its refusal for representation by Members of Parliament. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) keeps interjecting, yet there has not been one government member who has stood up and supported the exclusion of Members of Parliament from the review committee.
What is there that is new and different? We have the same thing today that we had two weeks ago. It is a government that brings in closure and a government that wants to exclude elected Members of Parliament from having input into important decisions affecting the citizens of this country. There is a bunch of sheep who are going along with the wishes of the
Solicitor General, and not one of them issues a peep on that side of the House.
I believe we should be discussing the importance of representation on this review committee so that we have voices that speak on behalf of constituents. Members on the government side were elected to become Members of Parliament so that their constituents might have a say. The Member for Vancouver South is asking for no more and no less. We are not asking for dictatorial authority to make all of the final decisions. We are asking for the opportunity to have input on behalf of citizens who, rightly or wrongly, might be accused of an Act that causes them to go through interrogation by this new police agency.
We are dealing with something far more than a review committee. We are dealing with a police agency that dilutes the power of the RCMP and removes from Parliament the right of input from elected representatives. It turns over to a group of pork barrel Liberal appointees the right to decide in the reviewing process whether something is right or wrong.
As far as I, and I suggest the vast majority of Canadians across this land are concerned, it is wrong. That is not the process they would like to see. I am sure that most people in this House would agree that support for this motion is urgently needed. It is regrettable that not one soul on the government side is interested in speaking on behalf of the citizens who will not be represented on this review committee by elected Members of Parliament, or even appointed members to the Senate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I rose to speak on this very topic a day or two ago because I do consider it to be of major importance. I think it is fair to say that this legislation will go down in the annals of history as one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by the Government over the valid objections of those of us in the opposition who understand the important and far reaching effects of what is being done.
This legislation is important but not supportable, and I want to draw the distinction between the two. It is important because of the nature of the legislation and its potential to infringe upon the basic liberties of Canadians. It could be improved but could never be supportable.
I am surprised that the Solicitor General in many ways is betraying a longstanding publicly professed commitment to civil liberties. He now seems to be prepared to overlook or at least suppress what many in this country have long believed he stood for. He does not seem willing to listen to arguments being put to him.
This legislation could be made marginally more palatable with the acceptance of the amendment we are now debating. It is not revolutionary. It simply gives Members of Parliament that power which most citizens of Canada would anticipate they should have in any event. It gives to Members of Parliament the right to oversee that which has been given by an Act of Parliament, the most intrusive power ever granted in this country.


The other day I told the story of my visit to Moscow. I will not tell it again-


An Hon. Member:: Tell us again.


Ian Deans: My colleague says that he would like to hear it again, but perhaps repetition is not acceptable. However, I pointed out that the people I met when I was there feared their secret service more than they feared anything else. I think that is fair to say. I am not exaggerating. I believe that to be true.
That is true in many parts of the United States where people who have an axe to grind, if you will, or hold views different from the conventional and acceptable view of the Government in the United States: they fear the CIA more than most anything else. 1 cannot help but think that we are following the worst of all examples in Canada.
Let me ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in the friendliest manner to consider the scenario that I put before the House the other day. Suppose that he was a visitor to Leningrad, and at the behest of families living in Canada were to make a decision to visit their relatives in Leningrad. If he were to telephone them and make arrangements to visit them in their apartments, he, being a government official, would be seen to be an agent of a foreign government. They, being citizens of the Soviet Union, would then be under suspicion for having had him visit. That is the system. They consider it right. They consider it appropriate. Those people, once under surveillance, are harassed and continually watched day and night. Their phones are tapped, their mail is opened, they are harassed at their places of work and frequently taken into KGB headquarters for discussions, if you will, about their connections with these foreigners from outside their own country.
The Government in the Soviet Union, and many people in the Soviet Union believe that is appropriate. I am quite sure in Canada you could find people who would think it appropriate here that the secret service should be able to open people's mail, tap their telephones, listen in with listening devices to their conversations elsewhere, and have access to and use of doctors' files, and all of those things. There are people in Canada who see no harm in that because they live in that wonderful naivete that somehow or other if you do not break the law, then what have you got to hide. That is how they view things.
I had the pleasure of sitting with a lady last evening at dinner. I was a guest of the Speaker. She said to me: "I do not really mind if they open my mail. I do not really mind if they listen in to my phone calls because I do not do anything wrong." I said to her: "Well, the fact you do not do anything wrong is the very reason you should mind. The fact that you are a law abiding citizen is the very reason you should be concerned. The fact that you never break the law is the very reason you should be offended that the Government has chosen to give to this agency the power to do those things to you."
Security Intelligence Service
That is what makes the Bill offensive. If a person is suspected of committing a crime, of being in violation of Canada's laws, then there is ample provision for conducting an inquiry into his or her daily life, finding out and rooting out what can be the evidence necessary for prosecution. There are ample ways available for doing that. But it is those who do not harm, who break no laws, who live according to high moral and ethical standards who will be most affected, unfortunately, by casual relationships which may result in their being placed under surveillance. They have no way to seek redress. They cannot come to their Member of Parliament because the Member of Parliament has no way of seeking redress. They cannot go to the review agency. They cannot identify the people who are snooping.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They can go to the review committee.


Ian Deans: First, they have to know that they are being snooped on.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They just have to suspect it.


Ian Deans: That is about as naive as the lady at dinner last night. It would seem to me that by virtue of the fact that I seek public office and by virtue of the fact that I get elected, I am deemed by a segment of this society to be trustworthy. I have to live up to that trust. I believe I could be given the responsibility of sitting on a parliamentary oversight committee, and I believe I would have both the capacity and the sense of loyalty necessary to be able to make judgments about the appropriateness of the actions of the secret service. I believe that.
I would be prepared, as Privy Councillors do, to take an oath guaranteeing the secrecy of the information I get, if I had to, but we do not have that opportunity. That is what is wrong. That is one of the great fears. That is why we are so adamant in our opposition.
Not only is the concept wrong, not only is it unnecessary in our society, not only does it go far further than reasonable people would be prepared to expect it to go, but there is no clear way for those of us charged with the responsibility of administering, interpreting, understanding and representing the views of the public before Parliament to come to grips with the violations. That is why we ask again at 16 minutes past 8, half an hour before the Bill goes to bed, so to speak, that just maybe some further consideration of a Parliamentary oversight committee makes goods sense.
We ask the Solicitor General to have some faith, to trust us just a little bit, to trust his own colleagues. I want to say to you-I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are telling me that I am finished-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You are.


Ian Deans: -and that could mean many things. I just want to sum up.
By virtue of being appointed to the Cabinet, that does not give an individual elected Member of Parliament any more corner on truth or trustworthiness. It does not give that
4912


Security Intelligence Service
individual any more sense of appropriateness in dealing with matters such as this, not any more. I ask as best I can for reconsideration. This is an important amendment. The rest of the Bill is not supportable, but at least make it somewhat more palatable by accepting that we in Parliament could exercise that responsibility with a degree of commitment to this country, equally as well as people appointed by the Government.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I know you have been listening attentively and carefully to every word in this quite lengthy debate. You will have perceived without a doubt that there is a difference in approach by the two Opposition parties. On the one hand, we have seen from the New Democratic Party that mindless opposition which they display so often in this House. It would appear that the NDP want no security service of any kind in Canada. To that end, they have filibustered, they have moved motions which would delete every single clause in the Bill we have before us. The action of the NDP has put in jeopardy or denied proper consideration of the reasonable and sensible motions put forward by Members of the Conservative Party.
Our approach to this Bill has been characterized by this sense of reason, by this sensibility. We have argued at considerable length that the security service should be maintained under the auspices of the RCMP. That is not the item of debate now, so I will not reiterate those valid arguments in favour of that point of view. We have also tried to improve this Bill.
Many flaws in the Bill have been pointed out, and we have tried in our presentations to get a better system of accountability, a better system of control, and a better handle on the security service. We know that in this imperfect world there has to be a security service. It would be nice if we did not need one. But if we are faced with the necessity of a security service, then it is our belief that that service should be accountable to the people of Canada through their Parliament.
With that aim in mind, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) proposed what in all probability is the most important motion introduced to date at report stage. Were this motion to be carried, the administration, provisions and operation of this Act would be reviewed on a permanent basis by a committee of the House of Commons or by a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. What could be more sensible or more logical than that? This proposal goes to the heart of accountability and the heart of proper parliamentary scrutiny over the affairs of the security service.
The Government in its wisdom-and I use that word rather loosely-seems to think that it is okay for Parliament and parliamentary committees to look after the little things. It can set up a task force to look into a problem of the bean-growers of Ontario, with no offence to those great Canadians engaged in the production of beans. However, when it comes to a matter of fundamental public importance like the operation of a security service, then Parliament is not to be trusted and
should have nothing to do with that type of affair. It is okay on the little things, but the big important things have to come under the direct jurisdiction of the Government.
The people of Canada take the opposite point of view. They have some trust in parliamentarians, if for no other reason than they can get rid of us fairly easily once every four years or so if we do not take our responsibilities seriously. However, when accountability is given to some functionaries within the government service, then this is not the case. I am sure the public of Canada would rather put its trust in the people it has elected to serve it in the House of Commons than in a government hiding behind a wall of secrecy.
I would rather suspect that the committee of Privy Councillors envisaged under the Bill as it now stands would not do the same job as a committee of serving parliamentarians. I can foresee an occasion arising when the committee of Privy Councillors appointed by the government of the day, not entirely free from political and partisan considerations, sees some form of injustice being done. What would be its reaction? I suspect on many occasions its reaction on seeing an injustice would be to let it slide, not bring it forward or press for any corrective action. Some think that in the interests of the government of the day it is best slid under the carpet.
What would be the reaction of a committee comprised of parliamentarians, Members of Parliament and Members of the Senate who could join it, if it were the wish of Parliament? On seeing something of this nature, on seeing some injustice done by the security service, it would be much more likely to bring it forward, to insist that corrective action be taken and, if need be, to bring it to public attention so that pressure could be brought to bear upon the Government to correct the wrongdoing.
The system of elected representatives of the public being charged with scrutiny of security affairs works quite well in the United States. We have heard evidence to that effect tonight. I suggest that we should adopt the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South and make Parliament work.
The Government gives various forms of lip service to parliamentary reform and to putting parliamentarians in important positions such as that envisaged by the motion, but whenever an opportunity arises, as it has tonight, it puts it aside and nothing happens. It is my submission that the Government, despite the oaths we have given, does not trust parliamentarians. In return, why should we and Canadians across the country trust the Government?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise as perhaps the second or third last speaker in this second last phase of government closure on Bill C-9. As other Hon. Members have said, this Bill is equally as important as the Constitution Act in its effect on the future of the country. Our children and our children's children will be affected by this Bill. I feel in my bones that they will be affected adversely.
I say this because I have travelled around my riding in which there are many new Canadians from eastern Europe.


Some still have tattoos on their arms. Their civil rights were lost and essentially they became slaves. They can talk with real meaning about what it means to lose freedom. They can talk about the sense of intimidation by the simple presence of a secret service agency which has the power to intercept telephone calls, to open mail and to seize legal and medical documents. This is exactly what the Government is appropriating to itself.
After Hon. Members of this Party examined the Bill, we had approximately five or six major goals which we put to the Government. Indeed, had it accepted five of the six, we probably could be supporting part of the Bill. However, it rejected every one of them. With great respect, members of the Cabinet made a decision some years ago that they had to take power into their own hands and concentrate it. They made a decision that they had to knock down the provincial premiers and Parliament because we were standing up and speaking out. A whole series of actions over many years has resulted in the situation where we do not have as much freedom in the country as we once had.
The reason our forefathers came here has been lost. Why did they come? I know that my grandfather at 24 years of age crawled out of a coal mine and came to Canada because he had no chance in a country with an economic, social and political system that was holding him back. Having already spent 10 years in a coal mine he came to Canada. He braved the broad ocean and all the language problems, then found himself standing out on the high plains of western Canada, on 160 acres which were his for ten bucks. If he remained on it for three years and built a home, he could get the pre-emptive quarter. He and his wife, my grandmother, put their hands to the plough, broke that quarter section and turned it into fertile land. They died and they rest there. The next generation stayed on the land and worked hard. My father went into the ground at 35 years of age so that we could have freedom. I have a sense that we are letting those people down. I will vote against this Bill, and I hope other Hon. Members will do likewise.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-9. While we are discussing the Bill, the RCMP is quietly, effectively and efficiently carrying on the intelligence work of Canada. They are still doing the work even though they feel hurt because the Government is not recognizing the splendid work they are doing. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) says they are doing fine work, but he wants to kick them out and put in a civilian body. He does not want that civilian body to have any checks, he wants it to do what it likes. He does not want Members of Parliament to check what they are doing to see whether they are doing it effectively or otherwise.
Just a few moments ago the government Members turned down a motion in which the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) was asking that we have the civilian group work effectively, getting full value for the money and within the behaviour laws of the country. The Liberals turned it down.
Security Intelligence Service
When the first act of the new Leader of the Liberal Party is to bring in closure and pass a Bill without any of the amendments suggested by the Opposition or the common citizens of this country, it is getting pretty bad. The new Leader expects to become Prime Minister for a short term, and hopes to make it a long term through an election. If he is going to do that type of thing, Heaven help Canada. The people of Canada will not fall for that phoney stuff which some Liberals fell for the other night in the arena. He talked about western Canada. I hope he will help western Canada.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Wait until we get your seat.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Stand up and talk. You only talk from your seat. I guess the only thing good about you is your seat. That is the way they are. They cannot accept criticism. The Hon. Member was clapping his hands the other night when his Leader said: "We are going to win the West." He forgets that he has already doubled freight rates to the farmers. He is already robbing the farmers of their living. They did not kill the Crow. They moved it right into the offices of the CPR. That is what they have done. He is working with the CPR while he is Leader of the Liberal Party. That is the kind of Leader they have. That is the kind of Party it is. No wonder they do not want a review committee made up of Members. They want to hide it.
That is exactly what some of the great dictators of the world did. They got their country to the point where it could do nothing. Their secret service was able to do almost anything; there were no controls. Parliament was lost. Look at the history of the Nazi movement. I am not saying that this group are Nazis, but I ask you to look at the history of the Nazi movement where Hitler gradually got control of a great people. They were not even safe in their homes. The secret service would arrive in the middle of the night, take them away and they were not heard from again. That is banana republic stuff as well. That is what happened in Venezuela. We do not want that to happen in Canada. We do not want to see the beginnings, from where it might happen. We want this nipped in the bud. This is the place to do it.
This Bill gives too much power to a civilian organization which is not responsible to Parliament. The Government says it is responsible and then puts in a number of items that make it irresponsible, permitting it to do almost anything it wants. It can open my mail and yours, check into your bank account, check your income tax or check your medical records. What is it they cannot do? What kind of a country are we getting anyway?
I stood beside the graves of some of my friends who were killed in war. I wept because they thought they were fighting for a country where we would never see this type of thing happen. Now they are lying in graveyards in England and in France. It makes your blood boil when you think of the sacrifice of some of the finest young men in our country. They gave their lives so that we could have freedom. Then we have this kind of law brought into the Parliament of Canada. The


Security Intelligence Service
Government should be ashamed. The Bill sould be withdrawn and the Government should start over.
We have an intelligence service which is operating well. Even the Solicitor General says that. It is morally strong. It does not have the powers being given to this civilian body. It is doing a good job. Most people in Canada want it to continue.
This Government will not reflect the thinking of the people. It wants to tell them what is good for them. Some of them have a closure idea. Maybe it was their Leader. I do not know. They are not following democratic principles. They should reflect the thinking of the people of Canada. The fact that 71 per cent of Canadians do not want this civilian intelligence service is reason enough to throw it out.
I wonder about the wives of some of the soldiers who gave their lives to make this a free country where Parliament could reflect the thinking of the people. That is why they died. I wonder what their mothers are thinking tonight. They let their sons go to war to keep this country free. What will they think when they see this legislation which words can hardly describe?
We have an RCMP force which is doing the job quietly and effectively. It is trying to do away with this type of thing. We do not need this kind of a new body. If we are going to have it, let us have enough control so that it will not become another Gestapo, another KGB. If the powers are left as they are proposed, there is a good risk of that occurring. This is a good country. Our people are too fine to have this type of thing forced upon them. This Government should realize, new Leader or old Leader-it is the same old gang-that it had better change its ways because Canadians are fed up to the teeth with this type of legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has already spoken on this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the Solicitor General rising on a point of order?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: To close the debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Solicitor General does not have the right to speak again, I am afraid. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on Motion No. 116 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the proposed motion stands deferred. Automatically with that Motions Nos. 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123 are also deferred.
The next group of motions includes Nos. 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 124
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 56.
Motion No. 125
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 57.
Motion No. 126
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Motion No. 127
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
Motion No. 128
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 60.
Motion No. 131
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
Motion No. 132
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 63.
Motion No. 133
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 64.
Motion No. 134
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 65.
Motion No. 135
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 66.
Motion No. 136
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 67.
Motion No. 137
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 68.
Motion No. 142
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
Motion No. 143
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Motion No. 144
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 73.
Motion No. 145
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 74.
Motion No. 146


That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 75.
Motion No. 147
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 76.
Motion No. 148
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 77.
Motion No. 149
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 78.
Motion No. 150
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 79.
Motion No. 156
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 81.
Motion No. 157
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 82.
Motion No. 158
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 83.
Motion No. 161
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 85.
Motion No. 162
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 86.
Motion No. 163
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 87.
Motion No. 164
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 88.
Motion No. 165
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 89.
Motion No. 168
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 91.
Motion No. 169
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 92.
Motion No. 170
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 93.
Motion No. 171
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 94.
Motion No. 172
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 95.
Motion No. 173
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 96.
Motion No. 174
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting the Schedule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The debate is on the grouping of motions and the vote will be on Motion No. 124. For debate, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments which remain on this black day for freedom and democracy in this country I would like to make a few remarks with respect to this legislation and with respect to the very serious and indeed fatal flaws which are contained within the proposed legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is not entitled to address the whole Bill. The debate is on the motions you have just called.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The debate is on the grouping of motions I just called, which includes Motions Nos. 124 through to 174.
Security Intelligence Service


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there are some 40 clauses covered by these motions to delete clauses and it is those clauses to which I am addressing my remarks.
Without any doubt whatsoever, this Bill constitutes a massive assault on the most fundamental and basic civil liberties and rights to privacy of Canadians. The motions in question would delete a number of the most reprehensible provisions of this Bill. In the few minutes available to me, I would like to explain the purpose of these motions.
First, as the Bill now stands, the new civilian security service would have the power to massively invade the privacy of Canadians. It would have the unprecedented power to open first-class mail, to access confidential medical records and to examine confidential psychiatric records and journalists' records. Once again, I say that it is a disgrace and a shame that the press gallery is empty for this debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation in the country. Ironically, it may be the press that will become the victim of this new secret security service.
The service will have the power to break and enter anyone's home, to remove any document or indeed any thing from that home. In short, the powers that are proposed under the privisions of this Bill go far beyond those which were recommended by the McDonald Commission and have been attacked by virtually every witness that appeared before the Justice Committee. These witnesses included representatives from the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Jewish Congress-I could go on and on. Yet the Government shamefully ignores the will of the people of the country and proposes to plough ahead with a piece of legislation which flies in the face of all of the traditions in this country of civil liberties and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Any member of that Government who can stand up and support this Bill should hang his head in shame, because he is prepared to be a party to this attack on the civil liberties and the rights to privacy of Canadians.
The Bill constitutes nothing less than a denial of the rule of law in the country. There are those who ask if this is not at least a step forward because they say the status quo is not adequate. To them I say no, a thousand times no. While the status quo is flawed, this Bill with its sweeping mandate to target Canadians who have broken no laws whatsoever, this Bill with its wide and unprecedented powers to invade the privacy of Canadians, this Bill which denies Parliament a fundamental role to play in the oversight of the operations of the security service in the country, is a Bill which must be rejected by this Parliament if we are to preserve democracy in the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 8.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 19, 1984, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill.


Security Intelligence Service

The question is on Motion No. 124. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 129 and 130 have been grouped for debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 129
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 61.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Motion No. 130
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 61 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 26 the following:
"(2) Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, exercising primary responsibility pursuant to subsection (1), shall consult with municipal and provincial police forces when exercising such jurisdiction."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next grouping contains Motions Nos. 138 and 139.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 138
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
Motion No. 139
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 69 by striking out lines 11 to 17 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"69.(1) Three years after the coming into force of this Act a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as shall be established by Parliament for that purpose."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion 138. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next grouping of motions consists of Motions Nos. 140 and 141.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 140
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
Motion No. 141
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iii) activities that could reasonably be expected to constitute threats to the security of Canada".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 140. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next grouping of motions includes Motions Nos. 151, 152, 153, 154 and 155. I will put Motion No. 151 to the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 151
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 80.
Motion No. 152
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out lines 15 to 18 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"person other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident is a person described in paragraph 19(1 )(</), (e), (/), or (g) or in paragraph 27(2)(c), or that a person who is a permanent resident is a person described in subparagraph 19(l)(t/)(ii), or paragraph 19(l)(e) or (g) or 27(1 )(c), they may make a report to the".


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 
Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 154
That bill C-9 be amended in Clause 80 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 37 the following:
Security Intelligence Service
"(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the Minister shall not cause to be filed a certificate pursuant to that subsection in respect of paragraphs 19(l)(e) or (/), or paragraphs 27(1 )(c) or (2)(c) where the person believed to engage in subversion has neither used, nor advocated the use of violence."
Motion No. 155
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out lines 40 to 48 at page 37 and lines 1 and 2 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"for that purpose shall hold a hearing of which sections 29 to 31 shall apply as if the hearing were being carried on before an adjudicator."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 151. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 159 and 160 comprise the next grouping. I will now put Motion No. 159 to the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 159
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 84.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Motion No. 160
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 84
(a)	by striking out lines 1 to 3 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"is a person described,
(c)	in the case of a permanent resident, in subparagraph 19(l)(f/)(ii) or paragraph 19(1 )(e) or (g) or 27(1 )(c), or
(d)	in any case, in any paragraphs 19(1 )(</) to (g) or 27(2)(c), they may make a report to the"
(b)	by striking out lines 21 to 24 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"section 42 of that Act, except that
(a)	a reference in any of those provisions, to "deputy head" shall be read as a reference to the Minister and the Solicitor General; and
(b)	paragraph 50(a) of that Act does not apply with respect to the person concerning whom the report is made."
(c)	by striking out lines 21 to 23 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"in paragraph 82.1(2)(6) is a person described


Security Intelligence Service
(a) in the case of a permanent resident, in subparagraph 19(l)(4)(ii) or paragraph 19(l)(e) or (g) or 27(l)(c), or
(A) in any other case, in any of paragraphs 19(1)(4) to (g) or 27(2)(c), the".
certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 159. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
And the Members having been called in:


Mr. Speaker:: The first vote is on Motion No. 1. Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division stands deferred.
The last group includes Motions Nos. 166 and 167.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 166.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 90.
Motion No. 167.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 90 by striking out lines 12 and 13 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iii) activities that could reasonably be expected to constitute threats to the security of Canada".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 166. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) a recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to
(Division No. 55)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Gustafson
Andre	Halliday
Anguish	Hamilton
Beatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moo
Benjamin	Mountain)
Blaikie	Hargrave
Blenkarn	Hawkes
Bosley	Heap
Bradley	Hees
Broadbent	Hnatyshyn
Carney (Miss)	Hovdebo
Clark	Howie
(Yellowhead)	Keeper
Clark	Kempling
(Brandon-Souris)	Kilgour
Coates	King
Cooper	Knowles
Corbett	Kristiansen
Cossitt (Mrs.)	Lambert
Crombie	La Salle
Crosby	Lawrence
(Halifax West)	Lewis
Crouse	Lewycky
Dantzer	MacDonald (Miss)
Darling	(Kingston and the
Deans	Islands)
de Jong	MacDougall
Dick	Malone
Domm	Manly
Ellis	Mazankowski
Elzinga	McCain
Epp	McCuish
Fennell	McDermid
Forrestall	McDonald (Ms.)
Fraser	(Broadview-Greer
Fretz	McKinnon
Friesen	McKnight
Fulton	McLean
Gamble	McMillan
Greenaway	Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan .
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Siddon Speyer Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-105.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Bachand
Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais
Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova)
Campbell
(LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
*

Messrs.
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mmc)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mme) Hopkins Hudecki Isabelle Ittinuar Johnston Joyal Kaplan Kelly
Killens (Mme) Lachance Lajoie Landers Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Loiselle Lumley MacBain MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey MacLaren MacLellan Malepart Maltais Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton-Est) Nicholson (Mllc)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I look forward to a full and productive evening. However, I want to draw to your attention Standing Order 15(2) which states:
When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let us not talk about the noise or disturbance, but I believe I saw a certain government Member walk in and out of the House. I do not think that vote should be counted with respect to this matter. It was improper and should not be allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that the vote of the Hon. Member was not counted. The Chair just wishes that it could enforce all aspects of the rule cited by the Hon. Member.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:
Security Intelligence Service (Division No. 56)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Coates Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Siddon Speyer Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-105.
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey


Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Rossi
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
(2140)
Tardif
Tessier
Tousignant
Trudeau
Turner
Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-122.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Allmand, seconded by Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 30 to 46 at page 2 and lines 1 to 10 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
" "threats to the security of Canada" means (a) espionage or sabotage directed against Canada,
(Z>) foreign activities within Canada which are harmful to the vital national interests of Canada,
(c)	activities within or relating to Canada involving the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving political objectives within Canada,
(d)	activities within Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purposes of achieving a political objective in a foreign state where such activities are prejudicial to the safety, defence or foreign policy of Canada, and
(e)	covert unlawful acts directed toward the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,
but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 57)
++YEAS
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Coates Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkcs Heap Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood) McKinnon McKnight McLean McMillan Miller Mitges Munro
Reid	Scott	Waddell(St. Catharines)	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WenmanRiis	Siddon	Robinson	Speyer	Wilson(Burnaby)	Stewart	Sargeant	Taylor	WiseSchellenberger Scott	Thacker Towers	Wright(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Vankoughnet	Young-105.NAYS	Messrs.	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Ethier	MacEachenAxworthy	Evans	MacGuiganBachand	Ferguson	MackaseyBaker	Fisher	MacLarenBeauchamp-N iquet	Fleming	MacLellan(Mrs.)	Flis	MalepartBegin (Miss)	Foster	MaltaisBlais	Fox	MarceauBockstael	Frith	MasseBossy	Garant	MastersBreau	Gauthier	McCauleyBurghardt	Gendron	McRaeCampbell (Miss)	Gingras	Munro(South West Nova)	Gourd	(Hamilton East)Campbell	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Nicholson (Miss)(LaSalle)	Gourde	OlivierCampbell	(Levis)	Ostiguy(Cardigan)	Gray	OuelletCollenette	Guilbault	ParentComtois	Harquail	PelletierCorbin	Henderson	PennerCorriveau	Herbert	PetersonCosgrove	Hervieux-Payette	PinardCote (Mrs.)	(Mrs.)	PortelanceCousineau	Hopkins	ReganCullen	Hudecki	ReidCyr	Isabelle	(Kenora-Rainy River)Daudlin	Ittinuar	RobinsonDawson	Johnston	(Etobicoke- La keshore)De Bane	Joyal	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	RossiDemers	Kelly	RoyDeniger	Killens (Mrs.)	SavardDesmarais	Lachance	SchroderDingwall	Lajoie	SimmonsDion	Landers	TardifDionne	Lapierre	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	Lapointe	TousignantDubois	(Charlevoix)	TrudeauDuclos	LeBlanc	TurnerDupont	Leduc	VeilletteDupras	Lefebvre	WatsonDuquet	Lumley	WeatherheadErola (Mrs.)	MacBain	Whelan-120.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 2.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Howie Keeper	(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy		(Division No. 58)	
Kempling	Neil			
Kilgour	Nickerson		YEAS	
King	Nielsen			
Knowles	Nowlan		Messrs.	
Kristiansen	Nystrom			
Lambert	Oberle	Althouse	Blaikie	ClarkLa Salle	Ogle	Andre	Blenkarn	(Yellowhead)Lawrence	Orlikow	Anguish	Bosley	ClarkLewis	Parker	Beatty	Bradley	(Brandon-Souris)Lewycky	Patterson	Benjamin	Carney (Miss)	Coates
Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Haliiday Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 7. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 41 to 46 at page 2.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Messrs.
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lcwycky
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hcrvieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Speyer Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-105.
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Mal6part
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Coates Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
(.Division No. 59)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Gustafson
Haliiday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood) McKinnon McKnight McLean McMillan
++NAYS
Messrs.
Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cdte (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Duclos
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Speyer Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-104.
Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)


Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Landers Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) LeBlanc
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 1 to 6 at page 3.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 60)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the
Islands)
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(B roadv iew-G reen wood) McKinnon McKnight McLean McMillan Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-103.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Band de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 8 to 10 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"or dissent."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 61)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Bradley	CorbettAndre	Broadbent	Cossitt (Mrs.)Anguish	Carney (Miss)	CrombieBeatty	Clark	CrosbyBenjamin	(Yellowhead)	(Halifax W<Blaikie	Clark	CrouseBlenkarn	(Brandon-Souris)	DarlingBosley	Cooper	Deans
-tv

i,.


de Jong
Dick
Domm
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais
Bockstae!
Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau Cullen Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans


Mr. Speaker:: Messrs.
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Murphy
Neil
N ickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-102.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.
I declare the motion defeated.
Security Intelligence Service


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House to have the results of the last vote apply to all other amendments except 61,96, 153 and 160.


Mr. Speaker:: The proposal of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard)-


Ian Deans: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but 1 did not understand what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) said.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised. I am proposing that the same recorded division apply to all other amendments except Motions Nos. 61, 96, 153 and 160.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable. However, I would suggest that there might be a disposition of the House to apply the vote that was just recorded for Motion No. 9 to Motions Nos. 10, 12, 14 and 17.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement of the House that the vote which was applied to Motion No. 9 apply to Motions Nos. 10, 12, 14 and 17?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we want to make it clear that we are prepared to accede to any request that a negative vote apply to all amendments except 61, 96, 153 and 160, which are Government motions on which we want separate votes. We therefore suggested applying the same vote to all other motions by Opposition Members. This was turned down!
My hon. friend is moving a motion that applies only to two or three other amendments. Of course we agree, but it is not much of a proposal. It is a very modest one. However, I want to give him the assurance that, if he has any similar requests later on, we are prepared to keep the number of votes to a minimum, because we feel this is a lot of childish manoeuvring by the New Democratic Party, which is making a laughing stock of our Parliamentary institutions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the vote which applied to Motion No. 9 apply to Motion No. 10?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 3.


Security Intelligence Service
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Althouse	(Division No. 62)
 YEAS Messrs. Gustafson	McMillan
Andre	Halliday	MillerAnguish	Hamilton	MitgesBeatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MurphyBenjamin	Mountain)	NeilBlaikie	Hargrave	NickersonBlenkarn	Hawkes	NielsenBosley	Heap	NowlanBradley	Hees	NystromBroadbent	Hnatyshyn	OberleCarney (Miss)	Hovdebo	OgleClark	Howie	Orlikow(Yellowhead)	Keeper	ParkerClark	Kempling	Patterson(Brandon-Souris)	Kilgour	ReidCooper	King	(St. Catharines)Corbett	Knowles	RiisCossitt (Mrs.)	Kristiansen	RobinsonCrombie	Lambert	(Burnaby)Crosby	La Salle	Sargeant(Halifax West)	Lawrence	SchellenbergerCrouse	Lewis	ScottDarling	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Deans	MacDonald (Miss)	Scottde Jong	(Kingston and the	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dick	Islands)	ShieldsDomm	MacDougall	SiddonEllis	Malone	SpeyerElzinga	Manly	StewartEpp	Mazankowski	TaylorFennell	McCain	ThackerForrestall	McCuish	TowersFraser	McDermid	VankoughnetFretz	McDonald (Ms.)	WaddellFriesen	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WenmanFulton	McKinnon	WilsonGamble	McKnight	WiseGreenaway	McLean	Young-102.Appolloni (Mrs.)	NAYS Messrs. Deniger	HarquailAxworthy	Desmarais	HendersonBachand	Dingwall	HerbertBaker	Dion	Hervieux-PayetteBeauchamp-Niquet	Dionne	(Mrs.)(Mrs.)	(Chicoutimi)	HopkinsBegin (Miss)	Dubois	HudeckiBlais	Duclos	IsabelleBocks tael	Dupont	IttinuarBossy	Dupras	JohnstonBreau	Duquet	JoyalBurghardt	Eroia (Mrs.)	KaplanCampbell (Miss)	Ethier	Kelly(South West Nova)	Evans	Killens (Mrs.)Campbell	Ferguson	Lachance(LaSalle)	Fisher	LajoieCampbell	Fleming	Landers(Cardigan)	Flis	LapierreCollenette	Foster	LapointeComtois	Fox	(Charlevoix)Corbin	Frith	LeBlancCorriveau	Garant	LeducCosgrove	Gauthier	LefebvreCote (Mrs.)	Gendron	LumleyCousineau	Gingras	MacBainCullen	Gourd	MacEachenDaudlin	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacGuiganDawson	Gourde	MackaseyDe Bane	(Levis)	MacLarende Corneille	Gray	MacLellanDemers	Guilbault	Malepart
Messrs.
Maltais	Penner	SchroderMarceau	Peterson	SimmonsMasse	Pinard	SmithMasters	Portelance	TardifMcCauley	Prud'homme	McRae	Regan	TessierMunro	Reid	Tousignant(Hamilton East)	(Kenora-Rainy River)	TrudeauNicholson (Miss)	Robinson	TurnerOlivier Ostiguy Ouellet	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi	Veillette WatsonParent	Roy	WeatherheadPelletier	Savard	Whelan-121


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 10 defeated.
Is there agreement that the vote which applied to Motion No. 9 apply to Motion No. 12?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Althouse	(Division No. 63)
 YEAS Messrs. Gustafson	McMillan
Andre	Halliday	MillerAnguish	Hamilton	MitgesBeatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MurphyBenjamin	Mountain)	NeilBlaikie	Hargrave	NickersonBlenkarn	Hawkes	NielsenBosley	Heap	NowlanBradley	Hees	NystromBroadbent	Hnatyshyn	OberleCarney (Miss)	Hovdebo	OgleClark	Howie	Orlikow(Yellowhead)	Keeper	ParkerClark	Kempling	Patterson(Brandon-Souris)	Kilgour	ReidCooper	King	(St. Catharines)Corbett	Knowles	RiisCossitt (Mrs.)	Kristiansen	RobinsonCrombie	Lambert	(Burnaby)Crosby	La Salle	Sargeant(Halifax West)	Lawrence	SchellenbergerCrouse	Lewis	ScottDarling	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Deans	MacDonald (Miss)	Scottde Jong	(Kingston and the	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dick	Islands)	ShieldsDomm	MacDougall	SiddonEllis	Malone	SpeyerElzinga	Manly	StewartEpp	Mazankowski	TaylorFennell	McCain	ThackerForrestall	McCuish	TowersFraser	McDermid	VankoughnetFretz	McDonald (Ms.)	WaddellFriesen	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WenmanFulton	McKinnon	WilsonGamble	McKnight	WiseGreenaway	McLean	Young-102.Appolloni (Mrs.)	NAYS Messrs. Beauchamp-Niquet	BossyAxworthy	(Mrs.)	BreauBegin (Miss)	BurghardtBachand	Blais	Campbell (Miss)Baker	Bockstael	(South West Nova)
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Messrs.
Campbell (LaSalle) Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.) Ethier Evans Ferguson Fisher Fleming Flis Foster Fox Frith Garant Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 12 defeated.
Is there unanimous consent that the vote which applied to Motion No. 9 apply to Motion No. 14?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 22 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"appoint the Director of the Service, after consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons of each party having at least 12 Members in that House."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 64)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crombie
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.) (Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines) Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-102.
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cdte (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 14 defeated.
Is there unanimous consent that the vote which applied to Motion No. 9 apply to Motion No. 17?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


Security Intelligence Service (Division No. 65)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Gustafson	MillerAndre	Halliday	MitgesAnguish	Hamilton	MurphyBeatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NeilBenjamin	Mountain)	NickersonBlaikie	Hargrave	NielsenBlenkarn	Hawkes	NowlanBosley	Heap	NystromBradley	Hees	OberleBroadbent	Hnatyshyn	OgleCarney (Miss)	Hovdebo	OrlikowClark	Howie	Parker(Yellowhead)	Keeper	PattersonClark	Kempling	Reid(Brandon-Souris)	Kilgour	(St. CathariCooper	King	RiisCorbett	Knowles	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	Kristiansen	(Burnaby)Crombie	Lambert	SargeantCrosby	La Salle	Schellenbergei(Halifax West)	Lawrence	ScottCrouse	Lewis	(Hamilton-1Darling	Lewycky	ScottDeans	MacDonald (Miss)	(Victoria-Hde Jong	(Kingston and the Islands)	ShieldsDick	MacDougall	SiddonDomm	Malone	SpeyerEllis	Manly	StewartElzinga	Mazankowski	TaylorEpp	McCain	ThackerFennell	McCuish	TowersForestall	McDermid	VankoughnetFraser	McDonald (Ms.)	WaddellFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WenmanFriesen	McKinnon	WilsonFulton	McKnight	WiseGamble	McLean	Young-102.Greenaway	McMillan
NAYS Messrs.	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Dubois	KellyAxworthy	Duclos	Killens (Mrs.)Bachand	Dupont	LachanceBaker	Dupras	LajoieBeauchamp-Niquet	Duquet	Landers(Mrs.)	Erola (Mrs.)	Lapierre
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
Prud'homme	Rossi	TessierRegan	Roy	TousignantReid	Savard	Trudeau(Kenora-Rainy River)	Schroder	TurnerRobinson	Simmons	Veillette(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	Smith	WatsonRompkey	Tardif	Weatherhead Whelan-121


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 17 defeated.
The votes which have carried will dispose of Motions Nos. 16, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 35.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of clarification, I want to be sure that, in indicating that they be applied to the motions which I indicated, they be recorded as if the vote had been taken.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair very carefully called it so that the vote would be recorded, and declared the motion defeated in each case. The Chair has also-


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, since I came in at this point, prior to the decision of the Chair, I would like to know whether or not my name can be included?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It was agreed that the votes as agreed to will stand. The Chair is repeating again, for the benefit of Hon. Members, that Motions Nos. 16, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 35 have been disposed of as a consequence of the votes which have been taken and recorded.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 66)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Fox	MacEachen	Althouse	de Jong	HovdeboFrith	MacGuigan	Andre	Dick	HowieGarant	Mackasey	Anguish	Domm	KeeperGauthier	MacLaren	Beatty	Ellis	KemplingGendron	MacLellan	Benjamin	Elzinga	KilgourGingras	Malepart	Blaikie	Epp	KingGourd	Maltais	Blenkarn	Fennell	Knowles(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Marceau	Bosley	Forrestall	KristiansenGourde	Masse	Bradley	Fraser	Lambert(Levis)	Masters	Broadbent	Fretz	La SalleGray	McCauley	Carney (Miss)	Friesen	LawrenceGuilbault	McRae	Clark	Fulton	LewisHarquail	Munro	(Yellowhead)	Gamble	LewyckyHenderson	(Hamilton East)	Clark	Greenaway	MacDonald (Miss)Herbert	Nicholson (Miss)	(Brandon-Souris)	Gustafson	(Kingston and theHervieux-Payette	Olivier	Cooper	Halliday	MacDougall(Mrs.)	Ostiguy	Corbett	Hamilton	MaloneHopkins	Ouellet	Cossitt (Mrs.)	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	ManlyHudecki	Parent	Crombie	Mountain)	MazankowskiIsabelle	Pelletier	Crosby	Hargrave	McCainIttinuar	Penner	(Halifax West)	Hawkes	McCuishJohnston	Peterson	Crouse	Heap	McDermidJoyal	Pinard	Darling	Hees	McDonald (Ms.)Kaplan	Portelance	Deans	Hnatyshyn	(Broadview-GreemMcKinnon	Orlikow	ShieldsMcKnight	Parker	SiddonMcLean	Patterson	SpeyerMcMillan	Reid	StewartMiller	(St. Catharines)	TaylorMitges	Riis	ThackerMurphy	Robinson	TowersNeil	(Burnaby)	VankoughnetNickerson	Sargeant	WaddellNielsen	Schellenberger	WenmanNowlan	Scott	WilsonNystrom	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WiseOberle	Scott	Young-102.Ogle	(Victoria-Haliburton)	
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois
	Security Intelligence Service	
	Messrs.	
Crosby	Keeper	Nielsen(Halifax West)	Kempling	NowlanCrouse	Kilgour	NystromDarling	King	OberleDeans	Knowles	Oglede Jong	Kristiansen	OrlikowDick	Lambert	ParkerDomm	La Salle	PattersonEllis	Lawrence	ReidElzinga	Lewis	(St. CatEpp	Lewycky	RiisFennell	MacDonald (Miss)	Robinson
Messrs.
MacGuigan
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Corbin	Herbert	PetersonCorriveau	Hervieux-Payette	PinardCosgrove	(Mrs.)	PortelanceCote (Mrs.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCousineau	Hudecki	ReganCullen	Isabelle	ReidDaudlin	Ittinuar	(Kenora-RaDawson	Johnston	RobinsonDe Bane	Joyal	(Etobicoke-1de Corneille	Kaplan	RompkeyDemers	Kelly	RossiDeniger	Killens (Mrs.)	RoyDesmarais	Lachance	SavardDingwall	Lajoie	SchroderDion	Landers	SimmonsDionne	Lapierre	Smith(Chicoutimi)	Lapointe	TardifDubois	(Charlevoix)	TessierDuclos	LeBlanc	TousignantDupont	Leduc	TrudeauDupras	Lefebvre	TurnerDuquet	Lumley	VeilletteErola (Mrs.)	MacBain	WatsonEthier	MacEachen	Weatherhead Whelan-121


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:
(.Division No. 67)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley Bradley Broadbent Carney (Miss) Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Sour is) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Ferguson	Mackasey	Gustafson	McDermid	ShieldsFisher	MacLaren	Halliday	McDonald (Ms.)	SiddonFleming	MacLellan	Hamilton	(Broadview-Greenwood)	SpeyerFlis	Malepart	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McKinnon	StewartFoster	Maltais	Mountain)	McKnight	TaylorFox	Marceau	Hargrave	McLean	ThackerFrith	Masse	Hawkes	McMillan	TowersGarant	Masters	Heap	Miller	VankoughnetGauthier	McCauley	Hees	Mitges	WaddellGendron	McRae	Hnatyshyn	Murphy	WenmanGingras	Munro	Hovdebo	Neil	WilsonGourd	(Hamilton East)	Howie	Nickerson	Wise(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Nicholson (Miss)	Young-102.Gourde	Olivier	NAYS	(Levis)	Ostiguy	
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 9.


Security Intelligence Service
The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 68)
Althousc
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenctte Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
++YEAS
Messrs.
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
Miller
Mitges
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
de Jong	(Kingston and the Islands)	ShieldsDick	MacDougall	SiddonDomm	Malone	SpeyerEllis	Manly	StewartElzinga	Mazankowski	TaylorEpp	McCain	ThackerFennell	McCuish	TowersForrcstall	McDermid	VankoughnetFraser	McDonald (Ms.)	WaddellFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WenmanFriesen	McKinnon	WilsonFulton	McKnight	WiseGamble	McLean	Young-102.Greenaway	McMillan	NAYS	Messrs.	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Dion	HudeckiAxworthy	Dionne	IsabelleBachand	(Chicoutimi)	IttinuarBaker	Dubois	Johnston
Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Eroia (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Messrs.
Olivier	Regan	SimmonsOstiguy	Reid	SmithOuellet	(Kenora-Rainy River)	TardifParent	Robinson	TessierPelletier	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	TousignantPenner	Rompkey	TrudeauPeterson	Rossi	TurnerPinard	Roy	VeillettePortelance	Savard	WatsonPrud'homme	Schroder	Weatherhead Whelan-121


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 69)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Gustafson	MillerAndre	Halliday	MitgesAnguish	Hamilton	MurphyBeatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NeilBenjamin	Mountain)	NickersonBlaikie	Hargrave	NielsenBlenkarn	Hawkes	NowlanBosley	Heap	NystromBradley	Hees	OberleBroadbent	Hnatyshyn	OgleCarney (Miss)	Hovdebo	OrlikowClark	Howie	Parker(Yellowhead)	Keeper	PattersonClark	Kempling	Reid(Brandon-Souris)	Kilgour	(St. Catharines)Cooper	King	RiisCorbett	Knowles	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	Kristiansen	(Burnaby)Crombie	Lambert	SargeantCrosby	La Salle	Schellenberger(Halifax West)	Lawrence	ScottCrouse	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	Lewycky	ScottDeans	MacDonald (Miss)	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Jong	(Kingston and the Islands)	ShieldsDick	MacDougall	SiddonDomm	Malone	SpeyerEllis	Manly	StewartElzinga	Mazankowski	TaylorEpp	McCain	ThackerFennell	McCuish	TowersForrestall	McDermid	VankoughnetFraser	McDonald (Ms.)	WaddellFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WenmanFriesen	McKinnon	WilsonFulton	McKnight	WiseGamble	McLean	Young-102.Greenaway	McMillan	
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Campbell	De BaneAxworthy	(LaSalle)	de CorneilleBachand	Campbell	DemersBaker	(Cardigan)	DenigerBeauchamp-N iquet	Collenette	Desmarais(Mrs.)	Comtois	DingwallBegin (Miss)	Corbin	DionBlais	Corriveau	DionneBockstael	Cosgrove	(ChicoutirBossy	Cote (Mrs.)	DuboisBreau	Cousineau	DuclosBurghardt	Cullen	DupontCampbell (Miss)	Daudlin	Dupras(South West Nova)	Dawson	Duquet
Messrs.
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Erola (Mrs.)	Joyal	Olivier	Waddell WenmanEthier	Kaplan	Ostiguy	Evans	Kelly	Ouellet	Ferguson	Killens (Mrs.)	Parent	Fisher	Lachance	Pelletier	Fleming	Lajoie	Penner	Flis	Landers	Peterson	Appolloni (Mrs.)Foster	Lapierre	Pinard	AxworthyFox	Lapointe	Portelance	BachandFrith	(Charlevoix)	Prud'homme	BakerGarant Gauthier	LeBlanc Leduc	Regan Reid	Beauchamp-Niquet (Mrs.)Gendron	Lefebvre	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Begin (Miss) BlaisGingras	Lumley	Robinson	Gourd	MacBain	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Bockstael
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey MacLaren MacLellan Malepart Maltais Marceau Masse Masters McCauley McRae Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.
A It house Andre Anguish ' Beatty Benjamin Blaikie Blenkarn Bosley Bradley Broadbent Carney (Miss) Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.) (Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Wilson
Wise
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Young-102.
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 70)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Corbin	Herbert	PetersonCorriveau	Hervieux-Payette	PinardCosgrove	(Mrs.)	PortelanceCote (Mrs.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCousineau	Hudecki	ReganCullen	Isabelle	ReidDaudlin	Ittinuar	(Kenora-RaDawson	Johnston	RobinsonDe Bane	Joyal	(Etobicoke-1de Corneille	Kaplan	RompkeyDemers	Kelly	RossiDeniger	Killens (Mrs.)	RoyDesmarais	Lachance	SavardDingwall	Lajoie	SchroderDion	Landers	SimmonsDionne	Lapierre	Smith(Chicoutimi)	Lapointe	TardifDubois	(Charlevoix)	TessierDuclos	LeBlanc	TousignantDupont	Leduc	TrudeauDupras	Lefebvre	TurnerDuquet	Lumley	VeilletteErola (Mrs.)	MacBain	WatsonEthier	MacEachen	Weatherhead Whelan-121


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 71)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crombie
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper


Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Kempling	McKinnon	RobinsonKilgour	McKnight	(Burnaby)King	McLean	SargeantKnowles	McMillan	SchellenbergerKristiansen	Miller	ScottLambert	Mitges	(Hamilton-Wentworth)La Salle	Murphy	ScottLawrence	Neil	(Victoria-Haliburton)Lewis	Nickerson	ShieldsLewycky	Nielsen	SiddonMacDonald (Miss)	Nowlan	Speyer(Kingston and the Islands)	Nystrom	StewartMacDougall	Oberle	TaylorMalone	Ogle	ThackerManly	Orlikow	TowersMazankowski	Parker	VankoughnetMcCain	Patterson	WaddellMcCuish	Reid	WenmanMcDermid	(St. Catharines)	WilsonMcDonald (Ms.)	Riis	Wise(Broadview-Greenwood)	Young-102.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote will be on Motion No. 13. Mr. Fraser, seconded by Mr. Thacker, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 22 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "appoint the Director of the Service, who, subject to subsection 6( 1), has the operational responsibility for the Service."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Andre
Beatty
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Gamble
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet
(Division No. 72)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Howie
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McKinnon McKnight McLean
++NAYS
Messrs.
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux- Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
McMillan
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines) Schellenberger Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Speyer Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Wenman Wilson Wise-76.
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rossi Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-115.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the New Democratic Party is now abstaining on motions against the Government. I take it that this is an indication that it now is apparently supporting the Government with respect to its legislation, since it has refused to take a stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the Hon. Member is making a point of order. Does the Hon. Member have a proposal with respect to the votes?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, I was wondering whether, in view of that circumstances, we might take a ten-minute break at this point in time, with unanimous consent, of course, in order to find out where the New Democratic Party stands on this Bill, or whether those Hon. Members are just fooling around and playing games.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for a ten-minute break?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, but a different tack.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I think the House should consider seriously the proposal laid before the House-and ignored by the New Democratic Party-by the Government House Leader, whom I have personally always admired, but with whom I have often disagreed. But in terms of this present charade and circus, he had a proposal which would expedite proceedings and let this Chamber retain a little respect because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we need more than a new Liberal Leader to make sure the reforms of this House make some sense. This is absolutely stupid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair calls to the attention of Hon. Members that there has to be unanimous consent for proposals to be adopted.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that you are not ringing the bells with the unanimous consent of the House. I would therefore request that you ring the bells.


Some Hon. Members:: No bells!


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 19. The Chair has had a number of appeals of order, which I hope are
Security Intelligence Service
well founded. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to be no disposition to alter the form of our vote at this particular time, may I seek unanimous consent of the House to relieve the staff of the cafeteria from duty so that they may go home and get some sleep, if the rest of us cannot?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member's motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 19.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am putting the Hon. Member's motion. Does he have a problem?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if the Conservative Party wants to co-operate with the Liberals in smashing civil liberties in this country-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves-shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 19. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 6
(a)	by striking out lines 34 to 36 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the service, and shall issue such written directions on general operational policies of the service including without limiting the generality of the foregoing subsection
(a)	policies with respect to the use of undercover operatives by the service;
(b)	policies with respect to the use of physical surveillance by the service;
(c)	policies with respect to training of employees;
(d)	policies establishing minimization procedures for warrants issued under this Act,
and a copy of any such direction shall forthwith after it has been issued be given to the Review Committee.
(b)	by adding immediately after line 40 at page 4, the following:
"(4) The director shall keep the minister fully and currently informed of all operations of the service."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cdte (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Security Intelligence Service (Division No. 73)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Halliday	Munro
Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)
(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Murphy
Mountain)	Neil
Hargrave	Nickerson
Hawkes	Nielsen
Heap	Nowlan
Hees	Nystrom
Hnatyshyn	Oberle
Hovdebo	Ogle
Howie	Orlikow
Keeper	Parker
Kempling	Patterson
Kilgour	Reid
King	(St. Catharines)
Knowles	Riis
Kristiansen	Robinson
Lambert	(Burnaby)
La Salle	Sargeant
Lawrence	Schellcnberger
Lewis	Scott
Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)
MacDonald (Miss)	Scott
(Kingston and the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)
MacDougall	Shields
Malone	Siddon
Manly	Skelly
Mazankowski	Speyer
McCain	Stewart
McCuish	Taylor
McDermid	Thacker
McDonald (Ms.)	Towers
(Broadview-Greenwood)	Vankoughnet
McKinnon	Waddell
McKnight	Wenman
McLean	Wilson
McMillan	Wise
Miller	Young-104.
Mitges	
NAYS	
Messrs.	
Dubois	Killens (Mrs.)
Duclos	Lachance
Dupont	Lajoie
Dupras	Landers
Duquet	Lapierre
Erola (Mrs.)	Lapointe
Ethier	(Charlevoix)
Evans	LeBlanc
Ferguson	Leduc
Fisher	Lefebvre
Fleming	Lumley
Flis	MacBain
Foster	MacEachen
Fox	MacGuigan
Frith	Mackasey
Garant	MacLaren
Gauthier	MacLellan
Gendron	Malepart
Gingras	Maltais
Gourd	Marceau
(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Masse
Gourde	Masters
(Levis)	McCauley
Gray	McRae
Guilbault	Munro
Harquail	(Hamilton East)
Henderson	Nicholson (Miss)
Herbert	Ostiguy
Hervieux-Payette	Ouellet
(Mrs.)	Parent
Hopkins	Pelletier
Hudecki	Penner
Isabelle	Peterson
Ittinuar	Pinard
Johnston	Portelance
Joyal	Regan
Kaplan	Reid
Kelly	(Kenora-Rainy River)
Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard
Messrs.
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Tessier
Tousignant
Trudeau
Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-119.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might seek unanimous consent to have the vote recorded for Motion No. 19 as applying to Motions No. 22, 30, 33 and 36.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the vote on Motion No. 19 apply to Motion No. 22?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the proposal. I have a sheet of paper here from the-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair, I think, understands the proposal. Is there agreement that the vote applying to Motion No. 19 also applies to Motion No. 22?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered. I declare Motion No. 22 defeated.
Is there agreement that the vote on Motion No. 19 also applies to Motion No. 30?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the proposal presented to us by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) involved Motions Nos. 22, 23 and 24, not Motions Nos. 30, 33 and 36. It is either that, or he has given me information which is not on the proposal put forward-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair understands that we all have a little difficulty at this hour, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) does, too. The Chair is going stage by stage. Can the vote applying to Motion No. 19 also apply to Motion No. 30? Is there unanimous agreement?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply think that we should adjourn this House for ten minutes so I can consult with my colleague and find out exactly what he has in mind. It is not in accordance with the proposal he gave to me on paper. We may be able to resolve it faster.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously the Chair is not a party to private discussions that have taken place. The Chair distinctly heard a proposal for the vote which applied to Motion No. 19 also apply to Motions Nos. 22, 30, 33 and 36. The Chair is testing to see if there is unanimous consent of the House that these votes be so reported.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not.


Ian Deans: I am sorry if I confused my colleague. I did not intend to.


An Hon. Member:: That is easy to do.


Security Intelligence Service


Ian Deans: No, it is not easy to do. It just happened. It may well be that the paper is different. The paper was a photocopy of what I was working from. It was my intention earlier to have the vote as recorded for Motion No. 24 apply to Motion No. 30. I recognized that the same vote that applied to Motion No. 19 could equally apply to Motion No. 30, so I included it in the numbers, that was all. However, if you will apply it to Motion No. 22, I will communicate with my colleague and we will straighten it out. Just apply it to Motion No. 22 and we will go on to Motion No. 23.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement that the vote which applied to Motion No. 19 also apply to Motion No. 22?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous agreement I declare that the vote which applied to Motion No. 19 also applies to Motion No. 22. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 74)
++YEAS
Messrs.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Ethier	MacEachenAxworthy	Evans	MacGuiganBachand	Ferguson	MackaseyBaker	Fisher	MacLarenBeauchamp-Niquet	Fleming	MacLellan(Mrs.)	Flis	MalepartBegin (Miss)	Foster	MaltaisBlais	Fox	MarceauBockstael	Frith	MasseBossy	Garant	MastersBreau	Gauthier	McCauleyBurghardt	Gendron	McRaeCampbell (Miss)	Gingras	Munro(South West Nova)	Gourd	(Hamilton East)Campbell	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Nicholson (Miss)(LaSalle)	Gourde	OstiguyCampbell	(L6vis)	Ouellct(Cardigan)	Gray	ParentCollenette	Guilbault	PelletierComtois	Harquail	PennerCorbin	Henderson	PetersonCorriveau	Herbert	PinardCosgrove	Hervieux-Payette	PortelanceC6t6 (Mrs.)	(Mrs.) '	ReganCousineau	Hopkins	ReidCullen	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cyr	Isabelle	RobinsonDaudlin	Ittinuar	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Dawson	Johnston	RompkeyDc Bane	Joyal	Rosside Corneille	Kaplan	RoyDemers	Kelly	SavardDeniger	Killens (Mrs.)	SchroderDesmarais	Lachance	SimmonsDingwall	Lajoie	SmithDion	Landers	TessicrDionne	Lapierre	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	Lapointe	TrudeauDubois	(Charlevoix)	TurnerDuclos	LeBlanc	VeilletteDupont	Leduc	WatsonDupras	Lefebvre	WeatherheadDuquet	Lumley	Whelan-119.Erola (Mrs.)	MacBain	
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kiigour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 23. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Blaikie, moves:
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 23 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"of their employment, provided that, subject to the reasonable factors permitted under the Canadian Human Rights Act, there shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political belief or conviction for which a pardon has been granted, and".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Crouse Darling	Lewycky MacDonald (Miss)	(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott	{Division No. 75)	Deans	(Kingston and the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)	de Jong	MacDougall	Shields	YEAS	Dick	Malone	Siddon	Domm	Manly	Skelly	Messrs.	Ellis	Mazankowski	Speyer	Elzinga	McCain	Stewart	Althouse	Clark	DarlingEpp	McCuish	Taylor	Andre	(Yellowhead)	DeansFennell	McDermid	Thacker	Anguish	Clark	de JongForrestall	McDonald (Ms.)	Towers	Beatty	(Brandon-Souris)	DickFraser	(Broadview-Greenwood)	Vankoughnet	Benjamin	Cooper	DommFretz	McKinnon	Waddell	Blaikie	Corbett	EllisFriesen	McKnight	Wenman	Blenkarn	Cossitt (Mrs.)	ElzingaFulton	McLean	Wilson	Bosley	Crombie	EppGamble	McMillan	Wise	Bradley	Crosby	FennellGreenaway	Miller	Young-104.	Broadbent	(Halifax West)	ForrestallGustafson	Mitges	Carney (Miss)	Crouse	Fraser
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broad view-G reenwood) McKinnon McKnight McLean McMillan Miller Mitges Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
++NAYS
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-103.
"of their employment, without denying collective bargaining rights of the said employees, and"
(b) by striking out line 3 at page 6 and substituting the following:
"(4) The Governor-in-Council shall make".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 76)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Ethier Evans Ferguson Fisher Fleming FI is Foster Fox Frith Garant Gauthier Gendron Gingras Gourde (Levis) Gray Guilbault Harquail Henderson Herbert
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Peterson Pinard Portelance
Anguish	Mountain)	MurphyBeatty	Hargrave	NeilBenjamin	Hawkes	NickersonBlaikie	Heap	NielsenBlenkarn	Hees	NowlanBosley	Hnatyshyn	NystromBradley	Hovdebo	OberleBroadbent	Howie	OgleCarney (Miss)	Keeper	OrlikowClark	Kempling	Parker(Yellowhead)	Kilgour	PattersonClark	King	Reid(Brandon-Souris)	Knowles	(St. CatharinCooper	Kristiansen	RiisCorbett	Lambert	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	La Salle	(Burnaby)Crombie	Lawrence	SargeantCrosby	Lewis	Schellenberger(Halifax West)	Lewycky	ScottCrouse	MacDonald (Miss)	(Hamilton- V\
Darling
Deans
de Jong
Dick
Domm
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Fennell
For restall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-G reenwood) McKinnon McKnight McLean
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Corriveau	(Mrs.)	Regan	Fulton	McMillan	WilsonCosgrove	Hopkins	Reid	Greenaway	Miller	WiseCote (Mrs.)	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Gustafson	Mitges	Young-1Cousineau	Isabelle	Robinson	Halliday	Cullen	Ittinuar	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Cyr	Johnston	Rompkey	Daudlin	Joyal	Rossi	Dawson	Kaplan	Roy	NAYS	De Bane	Kelly	Savard	de Corneille	Killens (Mrs.)	Schroder	Messrs.	Demers	Lachance	Simmons	Deniger	Landers	Smith	Desmarais	Lapierre	Tardif	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Cote (Mrs.)	FergusonDingwall	Lapointe	Tessier	Axworthy	Cousineau	FisherDion	(Charlevoix)	Tousignant	Bachand	Cullen	FlemingDionne	LeBlanc	Trudeau	Baker	Cyr	Flis(Chicoutimi)	Leduc	Turner	Beauchamp-Niquet	Daudlin	FosterDubois	Lefebvre	Veillette	(Mrs.)	Dawson	FoxDuclos	Lumley	Watson	Begin (Miss)	De Bane	GarantDupont	MacBain	Weatherhead	Blais	de Corneille	GauthierDupras	MacEachen	Whelan-118.	Bockstael	Demers	GendronDuquet	MacGuigan	Bossy	Deniger	GingrasEroia (Mrs.)	Breau	Desmarais	Gourd


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 24. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 8
(a) by striking out line 23 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Cosgrove
Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Duquet Eroia (Mrs.) Ethier Evans
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins

Messrs.
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Landers Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Lumley MacBain MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Peterson Pinard Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-115.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to have the vote just recorded applied and recorded for motion No. 30.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the vote which applied to Motion No. 24 should apply to Motion No. 30?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
The next vote is on Motion No. 30. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 77)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Dick	HovdeboAnguish	Domm	HowieBeatty	Ellis	KeeperBenjamin	Elzinga	KilgourBlaikie	Epp	KingBlenkarn	Fennell	KnowlesBosley	Forrestall	KristiansenBradley	Fraser	LambertCarney (Miss)	Fretz	La SalleClark	Friesen	Lawrence(Yellowhead)	Fulton	LewyckyClark	Gamble	MacDonald (Miss)(Brandon-Souris)	Greenaway	(Kingston and theCooper	Gustafson	MacDougallCorbett	Halliday	MaloneCossitt (Mrs.)	Hamilton	ManlyCrombie	(Qu'Appelle- Moose	MazankowskiCrosby	Mountain)	McCain(Halifax West)	Hargrave	McDermidCrouse	Hawkes	McDonald (Ms.)Darling	Heap	(Broadview-Green1Deans	Hees	McKinnon
Security Intelligence Service
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan,
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Messrs.
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-98.
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-118.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 31. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 12
(a)	by striking out lines 1 to 5 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"12.(1) The service shall collect, analyze and retain to the extent only that is strictly necessary information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable and probable grounds be"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 9 at page 7 the following:
"(2) It shall not be a function of the service to carry out measures to enforce security."
The House divided on the motion, which was negative on the following division:


Alt house
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cdte (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras
Security Intelligence Service
(Division No. 78)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broad view-Greenwood) McKinnon McKnight McLean McMillan Miller Mitges
++NAYS
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-101.
Messrs.
Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefcbvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Vcillette Watson Wcatherhead Whelan-115.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would seek the consent of the House to have the vote which we have taken on Motion No. 31 applied to Motions Nos. 33 and 36.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
The next vote is on Motion No. 32. Mr. Fraser, seconded by Mr. Friesen, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 3 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"strictly necessary for the purpose of protecting the security of Canada, and analyse and retain".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(.Division No. 79)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Greenaway	MunroAndre	Gustafson	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Anguish	Halliday	MurphyBeatty	Hamilton	NeilBenjamin	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NickersonBlaikie	Mountain)	NielsenBlenkarn	Hargrave	NystromBosley	Hawkes	OberleBradley	Heap	OgleBroadbent	Hnatyshyn	OrlikowCarney (Miss)	Hovdebo	ParkerClark	Howie	Patterson(Yellowhead)	Keeper	ReidClark	Kempling	(St. Catharines)(Brandon-Souris)	Kilgour	RiisCooper	King	RobinsonCorbett	Kristiansen	(Burnaby)Cossitt (Mrs.)	Lambert	SargeantCrombie	La Salle	SchellenbergerCrosby	Lawrence	Scott(Halifax West)	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crouse	MacDonald (Miss)	ScottDarling	(Kingston and the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	MacDougall	Shieldsde Jong	Malone	SiddonDick	Manly	SkellyDomm	Mazankowski	SpeyerEllis	McCain	StewartElzinga	McCuish	TaylorEpp	McDermid	ThackerFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	TowersForrestall	(Broad view-Green wood)	VankoughnetFraser	McKinnon	WaddellFretz	McKnight	WenmanFriesen	McLean	WilsonFulton	Miller	WiseGamble	Mitges
NAYS Messrs.	Young-99.Appolloni (Mrs.)	Campbell (Miss)	CyrAxworthy	(South West Nova)	DaudlinBachand	Campbell	DawsonBaker	(Cardigan)	De BaneBeauchamp-Niquet	Collenette	de Corneille(Mrs.)	Comtois	DemersBegin (Miss)	Corbin	DenigerBlais	Corriveau	DesmaraisBockstael	Cosgrove	DingwallBossy	Cote (Mrs.)	DionBreau	Cousineau	DionneBurghardt	Cullen	(Chicoutimi)
Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
			Security Intelligence	Service
Messrs.			Messrs.	
Hopkins	McRae	McMillan	Patterson	SkellyHudecki	Nicholson (Miss)	Miller	Reid	SpeyerIsabelle	Olivier	Mitges	(St. Catharines)	TaylorIttinuar	Ostiguy	Munro	Riis	ThackerJohnston	Ouellet	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Robinson	TowersJoyal	Parent	Murphy	(Burnaby)	VankoughnetKaplan	Pelletier	Nickerson	Sargeant	WaddellKelly	Penner	Nielsen	Schellenberger	WenmanKillens (Mrs.)	Peterson	Nystrom	Scott	WilsonLachance	Pinard	Oberle	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WiseLanders	Portelance	Ogle	Shields	Young-90.Lapierre	Regan	Parker	Siddon	Lapointe	Reid	(Charlevoix)	(Kenora-Rainy River)	LeBlanc	Robinson	NAYS	Leduc	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Lefebvre	Rompkey	Messrs.	
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
Rossi
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Tessier
Tousignant
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan-114.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that perhaps there would be a disposition in the House to give unanimous consent to have the vote as recorded on Motion No. 32 applied to Motions Nos. 33 and 36.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that request is no.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 33. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 80)
Althouse	de Jong	HowieAnguish	Domm	KeeperBeatty	Ellis	KemplingBenjamin	Elzinga	KilgourBlaikie	Epp	KingBlenkarn	Fennell	KristiansenBosley	Forrestall	LambertBradley	Fretz	La SalleBroadbent	Friesen	LewisCarney (Miss)	Fulton	LewyckyClark	Gamble	MacDonald (Miss)(Yellowhead)	Greenaway	(Kingston and theClark	Gustafson	MacDougall(Brandon-Souris)	Halliday	MaloneCooper	Hamilton	ManlyCossitt (Mrs.)	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MazankowskiCrombie	Mountain)	McCuishCrosby	Hargrave	McDermid(Halifax West)	Hawkes	McDonald (Ms.)Crouse	Heap	(Broadview-Green1Darling	Hnatyshyn	McKnightDeans	Hovdebo	McLeanAxworthy	Ethier	MacBainBachand	Evans	MacEachenBeauchamp-Niquet	Ferguson	MacGuigan(Mrs.) Begin (Miss)	Fisher Fleming	Mackasey MacLarenBlais	Flis	MacLellanBossy	Foster	MaltaisBurghardt	Fox	MarceauCampbell (Miss)	Garant	Masse(South West Nova)	Gauthier	MastersCampbell	Gendron	McCauley(LaSalle)	Gourd	McRaeCampbell	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Nicholson (Miss)(Cardigan)	Gourde	OstiguyCollenette	(Levis)	OuelletComtois	Gray	PennerCorbin	Guilbault	PetersonCorriveau	Harquail	PinardCosgrove	Henderson	PortelanceCote (Mrs.)	Herbert	ReganCousineau	Hervieux-Payette	ReidCullen	(Mrs.)	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cyr	Hopkins	RobinsonDaudlin	Hudecki	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Dawson	Isabelle	Rompkeyde Corneille	Ittinuar	RossiDemers	Johnston	RoyDeniger	Joyal	SavardDesmarais	Kaplan	SchroderDingwall	Kelly	SimmonsDion	Killens (Mrs.)	SmithDionne	Lachance	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	Landers	TousignantDubois	Lapointe	TurnerDuclos	(Charlevoix)	VeilletteDupont	Lawrence	WatsonDupras	LeBlanc	WeatherheadDuquet	Leduc	Whelan-105.Erola (Mrs.)	Lumley


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.	
The next vote	is on Motion No. 34. Mr. Robinson (Burna-	
by), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:		
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 22 to 31 at page 7.		
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on		
the following division:		
	(.Division No. 81)	
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Althouse	Bosley	ClarkAndre	Bradley	(Brandon-Souris)Anguish	Broadbent	CoatesBeatty	Carney (Miss)	CooperBenjamin	Clark	Cossitt (Mrs.)Blaikie Blenkarn	(Yellowhead)	Crombie
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Kempling	Neil
Kilgour	Nickerson
Kristiansen	Nielsen
Lambert	Nystrom
La Salle	Oberle
Lawrence	Ogle
Lewis	Parker
Lewycky	Patterson
MacDonald (Miss)	Reid
(Kingston and the Islands)	(St. Catharines)
MacDougall	Riis
Malone	Robinson
Manly	(Burnaby)
Mazankowski	Sargeant
McCain	Schellenberger
McCuish	Scott
McDermid	(Victoria-Haliburton)
McDonald (Ms.)	Shields
(Broadview-Greenwood)	Siddon
McKinnon	Skelly
McKnight	Speyer
McLean	Taylor
McMillan	Thacker
Miller	Towers
Mitges	Vankoughnet
Munro	Waddell
(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Wenman
Murphy	Wise Young-94.
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
++NAYS
Messrs.
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tousignant Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-106.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, while I know that the able staff are doing a superb job under the circumstances, I distinctly heard the Clerk call out Mr. De Bane who is obviously not here. I think the Clerk made a mistake.


Mr. Speaker:: By agreement, the vote of Mr. De Bane will be stricken from the record.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I know it was probably an oversight, but I noticed that the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) clearly arrived after the vote had started and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) had cast his vote. The Hon. Member for Welland did enter the House then, and I am sure you would not want to record his vote.


Gilbert Parent: He is right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to have the vote as recorded for Motion No. 34 apply to Motion No. 36.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on his predictable response.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that request is no.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 36. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 82)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Gustafson	McLeanAnguish	Halliday	McMillanBeatty	Hamilton	MillerBenjamin	(Qu'Appelle- Moose	MitgesBlaikie	Mountain)	MunroBradley	Hargrave	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Clark	Hawkes	Murphy(Yellowhead)	Heap	NeilClark	Hnatyshyn	Nickerson(Brandon-Souris)	Hovdebo	OberleCoates	Howie	OgleCooper	Keeper	ParkerCossitt (Mrs.)	Kempling	ReidCrombie	Kilgour	(St. Catharines)Crosby	King	Riis(Halifax West)	Kristiansen	RobinsonCrouse	Lambert	(Burnaby)Darling	Lewis	SargeantDeans	Lewycky	Schellenbergerde Jong	MacDonald (Miss)	ScottDomm	(Kingston and the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Ellis	MacDougall	SiddonElzinga	Malone	SkellyEpp	Manly	SpeyerFennell	Mazankowski	TaylorFraser	McCain	TowersFretz	McDermid	VankoughnetFriesen	McDonald (Ms.)	WaddellFulton	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WenmanGamble	McKinnon	WilsonGreenaway	Young-81.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Evans	MacBainAxworthy	Ferguson	MacEachenBachand	Fisher	MacGuiganBaker	Fleming	MackaseyBeauchamp-Niquet	Flis	MacLaren(Mrs.)	Foster	MacLellanBegin (Miss)	Fox	MalepartBlais	Frith	MaltaisBockstael	Garant	MarceauBossy	Gauthier	MasseBreau	Gendron	MastersBurghardt	Gingras	McCauleyCampbell (Miss)	Gourd	McRae(South West Nova)	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Nicholson (Miss)Campbell	Gourde	Ostiguy(LaSalle)	(Levis)	OuelletCampbell	Gray	Parent(Cardigan)	Guilbault	PelletierCorbin	Harquail	PennerCorriveau	Henderson	PetersonCosgrove	Herbert	PinardCote (Mrs.)	Hervieux-Payette	PortelanceCousineau	(Mrs.)	ReganCullen	Hopkins	ReidDaudlin	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)Dawson	Isabelle	RobinsonDe Bane	Ittinuar	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)de Corneille	Johnston	RompkeyDemers	Joyal	RossiDeniger	Kaplan	RoyDesmarais	Kelly	SavardDingwall	Killens (Mrs.)	SchroderDion	Lachance	SimmonsDionne	Lajoie	Smith(Chicoutimi)	Landers	TardifDubois	Lapierre	TessierDuclos	Lapointe	TousignantDupras	(Charlevoix)	TurnerDuquet	Lawrence	VeilletteErola (Mrs.)	Leduc	WatsonEthier	Lefebvre	WeatherheadLumley	Whelan-114.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I hope you did not record the votes of the Members for Yukon, Calgary Centre, Vancouver Centre and Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Andre, Miss Carney and Mr. Dick). The first three left the House during the division and the last Hon. Member was not in his seat.

May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Citation 223(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads as follows:
A Member must be in his own seat should he wish to vote and should remain in his seat until the division is complete and the result announced.
That rule was applied very strictly to me on the first vote. I would hope that it would be applied to Members on the other side. I would like to make sure that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen), the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) and the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) will not be counted in this vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Security Intelligence Service


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I must confess to a weakness which overwhelmed me after the Opposition had voted. I could not wait after the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) rose, so, indeed, I was not present for the entire count.


Mr. Speaker:: For the information of the Hon. Members who have been named, the practice is to invite them to make a statement. Members are taken at their word.


Miss Carney:: Mr. Speaker, I support the position of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen).


Mr. Andre:: Me, too.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I remained in the Chamber for the entire vote, but did move forward one seat to discuss a matter with my House Leader about the ridiculous procedures that the NDP has forced us into tonight. It is a desecration of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a number of other Members moving and, as far as I am concerned, it is a disgrace to Parliament which has only been brought since Mr. Deans came here. It never happened in the 12 years before that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Peterborough on a point of order. The Chair will then recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that while we are straightening things out and clearing difficulties up, you will want to be made aware of the fact that the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) entered the House after the first vote has been cast by the New Democratic Party in the last vote.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, I was just at the last seat when the division started and I went behind the curtains.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) by his own admission was not in his seat and his vote will not be counted.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is twofold. First, the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) referred to me by name which you will know is out of order according to the Standing Orders. The second point that I would like to make, over the noise of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), is that while it might be claimed that the voting procedures in the House of Commons came about


Security Intelligence Service
after I arrived, I think perhaps those procedures predated my arrival.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is perfectly right; the practice is not to refer to Hon. Members by their names, but by their constituencies. With these modifications to the vote, the Clerk will now announce the results.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is trying to establish a count and is having enough difficulty. Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat for the moment?
I declare the motion defeated.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I heard the House Leader for the Government read out the regulations. It seemed to me that until the vote was announced anyone who left their chair could not be counted. I see many Hon. Members behind the curtain. Were their votes counted?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has had enough difficulty trying to bring some order out of this. I am sure Hon. Members recognize the need to stay in their places while a vote is being taken. There are certain difficulties when one gets to the hour of midnight. Hon. Members will bear in mind that the Chair is trying to interpret the rules as fairly as possible.
The next question is on Motion No. 37, Mr. Robinson (Burnaby) seconded by Mr. Fulton. Shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The House Leader of the New Democratic Party indicated by note that I could dispense. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) sends me a note stating he wants them all read. Will the Hon. Members please tell me what they want to do?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, you can dispense with the reading of the motions.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 46 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"section 13 or advice pursuant to section 14, utilizing only such techniques as are approved by the minister by regulation, such techniques not to include the use of undercover operatives or those for which a warrant is required under section 21 of this Act."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet (Mrs.)
Blais
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Burghardt
Campbell (Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet


Mr. Speaker:: (Division No. 83)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Miller
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
declare the motion lost.
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-88.
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-114.


Mr. McRae:: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) on a point of order.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I rise because I consider the proceedings are getting ridiculous. It seems to me that we have all made our point. I would suggest that the three House Leaders absent themselves from the next vote. I would be glad to absent myself as well so the two Opposition Parties would not consider there was a unevenness between the two sides. Perhaps the House Leaders can come to some agreement as to how this thing can be ended. I do not believe the public of Canada finds this a very pleasant proceeding and finds it ridiculous.
All I am suggesting is that three House Leaders absent themselves for a few moments. I would be glad to do what I said I would do, absent myself from the vote so there would be no unevenness. Let us see if we can come to some reasonable conclusion to what is becoming a farce.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burnaby has the floor.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would suggest to those Hon. Members who are concerned that they read the Bill and they will understand why this is happening tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 38. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
The House divided on the Motion which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 84)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	de Jong	HawkesAndre	Dick	HeapAnguish	Domm	HowieBeatty	Ellis	KeeperBlaikie	Elzinga	KemplingBlenkarn	Epp	KilgourBosley	Fennell	KingBradley	Forrestall	KristiansenBroadbent	Fraser	LambertCarney (Miss)	Fretz	LawrenceClark	Friesen	Lewis(Brandon-Souris)	Fulton	LewyckyCooper	Gamble	MacDonald (Miss)Corbett	Greenaway	(Kingston and theCossitt (Mrs.)	Gustafson	MacDougallCrosby	Halliday	Malone(Halifax West)	Hamilton	MazankowskiCrouse	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McCainDarling	Mountain)	McCuishDeans	Hargrave	McDermid
Security Intelligence Service
McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet
Messrs.
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ethier Evans Ferguson Fisher Fleming FI is Foster Fox Frith Garant Gauthier Gendron Gingras Gourde (Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Landers Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) LeBlanc Leduc
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-91.
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Watson
Weatherhead-108.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 39. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 16
(a)	by striking out line 8 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor: "capabilities, intentions or activities of any foreign power or agent of a foreign power".
(b)	by striking out lines 19 to 22 at page 8.
(c)	by adding immediately after line 31 at page 8 the following:
"(4) The service shall cease immediately the use of any technique for which a warrant is required under section 21 of this Act when obtaining information pursuant to sub-section 1 when performing its duties and functions under sub-section 1 immediately upon learning that the interception involves a communication involves a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of the immigration Act 1976 is a party.


Security Intelligence Service
(5) The service shall not for the purpose of this or any other section of this Act be authorized to receive information from the communications security establishment which has been obtained by the interception of communications of Canadian citizens or permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1976."
The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division.
Messrs.
Pelletier	Robinson	TardifPenncr	(Etobicoke- La keshore)	TessierPeterson	Rompkey	TousignantPortelance	Rossi	TurnerRegan	Roy	VeilletteReid	Savard	Watson(Kenora-Rainy River)	Schroder	WeatherheadSmith	Whelan-108.
(Division No. 85)
++YEAS
Althouse	Gustafson	MillerAnguish	Halliday	MitgesBeatty	Hamilton	MunroBlaikie	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Bienkarn	Mountain)	NickersonBosley	Hargrave	NielsenBradley	Hawkes	NystromBroadbent	Hnatyshyn	OberleCarney (Miss)	Hovdebo	OgleClark	Howie	Parker(Brandon-Souris)	Keeper	PattersonCooper	Kempling	ReidCorbett	Kilgour	(St. Catharines)Cossitt (Mrs.)	King	RiisCrosby	Kristiansen	Robinson(Halifax West)	Lambert	(Burnaby)Crouse	Lawrence	SargeantDarling	Lewis	SchellenbergerDeans	Lewycky	Scottde Jong	MacDonald (Miss)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dick	(Kingston and the Islands)	ScottDomm	MacDougall	(Victoria-Haliburton)Ellis	Malone	ShieldsElzinga	Manly	SiddonEpp	McCain	SkellyFennell	McCuish	StewartForrestall	McDermid	TaylorFraser	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood)	TowersFriesen	McKinnon	VankoughnetFulton	McKnight	WaddellGamble	McLean	WilsonGreenaway	McMillan	Wise
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Eroia (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Landers Lapointe (Charlevoix) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Lumley MacBain MacEachen MacLaren MacLellan Malepart Maltais Marceau Masse Masters McCauley McRae
Nicholson (Miss) Ostiguy Ouellet Parent


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 40. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 86)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Blaikie
Bienkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fretz Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
Halliday
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Grecnwood) McKinnon McKnight McLean McMillan Miller Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
N ickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wilson
Wise
Young-90.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Duquet
Eroia (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray


Messrs.
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBIanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-108.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think, by the actions of the House tonight, we are in grave danger of having the whole evening declared null and void, simply on the ground, if no other, that it requires the unanimous consent of the House to dispense with the ringing of the bells before a vote. I am sure it does.


Mr. Speaker:: I call to the attention of the Hon. Member that this is report stage and these are deferred votes. The bell has rung and the usual practice is that which is being followed.
The next vote is on Motion No. 41. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 5 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Where an arrangement or other form of co-operation is".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 87)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Elzinga	MaloneAndre	Fraser	ManlyAnguish	Fretz	MazankowskiBeatty	Friesen	McCainBenjamin	Fulton	McCuishBlaikie	Gamble	McDonald (Ms.)Blenkarn	Greenaway	(Broadview-GreeiBosley	Gustafson	McKinnonBradley	Halliday	McKnightBroadbent	Hawkes	McLeanCarney (Miss)	Heap	MillerClark	Hnatyshyn	Mitges(Yellowhead)	Hovdebo	MunroClark	Howie	(Esquimalt-Saan(Brandon-Souris)	Keeper	MurphyCorbett	Kempling	NeilCossitt (Mrs.)	Kilgour	NickersonCrombie	King	NystromCrosby	Kristiansen	Oberle(Halifax West)	Lambert	OgleCrouse	La Salle	ParkerDarling	Lawrence	Pattersonde Jong	Lewis	ReidDick	MacDonald (Miss)	(St. Catharines)Domm	(Kingston and the Islands)	RiisEllis	MacDougall	
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Robinson	Shields	Vankoughnet(Burnaby)	Siddon	WaddellSargeant	Skelly	WilsonScott	Taylor	Wise(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Thacker Towers	Young-84.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Begin (Miss)
Blais
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Dupras Duquet Eroia (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBIanc
Leduc
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ouellet
Parent
Peterson
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-100.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In accordance with the decisions already made in the House, I think the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet) should be discounted from voting as she came after the vote was well under way.
1 would also like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that all Members at that end of the Government side who are having sandwiches and cokes should do so outside, like everyone else on this side of the House, because they may even lose a few motions. I do not think that food should be brought into the House. At least, those are the rules we have heard.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. member is perfectly right. Food is not to be brought into the House. The Chair is not aware of any food being brought into the House. However, the Chair can only observe a certain amount.
As far as the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet) is concerned-
4944


Security Intelligence Service

Does the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet) agree with what the Hon. Member just said? Yes or no?


Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was outside. [English]


Mr. Masters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) might wish to have his vote not reported, as he came long after the vote started.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Simcoe South have anything to say in relation to the matter? Obviously, the vote of the Member for Simcoe South and the vote of the Member for Roberval will be discounted.
The motion is still defeated and the vote will be amended accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 42. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 88)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Broadbent
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hawkes Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
King
Kristiansen
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson (Burnaby)
(Halifax West)	Lambert	SargeantCrouse	La Salle	SchellenbergerDarling	Lawrence	ScottDeans	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wde Jong	Malone	ScottDick	Manly	(Victoria-HalDomm	Mazankowski	ShieldsEllis	McCuish	SiddonElzinga	McDermid	SpeyerEpp	McDonald (Ms.)	TaylorFennell	(Broadview-Greenwood)	ThackerForrestall	McKinnon	TowersFraser	McKnight	VankoughnetFretz	Miller	WaddellFriesen	Mitges	Young-85.NAYS	Messrs.	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Beauchamp-Niquet	BlaisAxworthy	(Mrs.)	BockstaelBachand	Begin (Miss)	Bossy
Messrs.
Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lajoie
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-108.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to raise with you at this point in time the question of the appropriateness of having votes take place without the vote having been called with respect to the motions before us. The point of order I raise is based on your observation that the Order does provide that 15 minutes before the time of expiry of the day of debate on any stage the motions will be put without further debate. I accept that as being the nature and effect of the Order we have before us.
But, Mr. Speaker, what we have now is deferral of certain groupings of votes which have taken place on the basis of your ruling during the course of the deliberations which we have had at report stage. There are certain consequences that flow as a result of a certain negative vote with respect to those groupings. The results in many instances are that if there is a negative vote with respect to a particular vote where it is a vote on which we commenced the grouping, the Speaker will then call individual motions.
I submit to you, Sir, with the greatest deference, that in accordance with the order you would be entitled at that time to call those individual motions for a yea or a nay. We have never had the opportunity to deal with them specifically, precisely, except as a group. When you do call a specific motion you should call the yeas and the nays, and as my colleague the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) suggests, we would then be able to have a voice vote on those subsequent individual motions. I think then you would be able to determine whether or not at that time there was a disposition to pass a motion on the basis of the


voice vote. If necessary we could then determine whether a standing vote would take place. We do not have the option at this time of seeing whether or not these particular motions can go through on the basis of a voice vote.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's point is very well taken. The Chair has listened attentively and we will call the yeas and nays on a voice vote and have only recorded votes when five or more Members rise.
May I, under such circumstances, dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we are going to dispense with the ringing of the bells. I think that the ringing of the bells will at least give us an opportunity to consider what we are doing around this place.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think that all the voice votes were called and deferred before tonight on each of the amendments. I do not think we are allowed under the rules to start the process all over again.
May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 79(11) which reads:
When a recorded division has been demanded on any amendment proposed during the report stage of a bill, the Speaker may defer the calling in of the Members for the purpose of recording the "yeas" and "nays" until any or all subsequent amendments proposed to that bill have been considered. A recorded division or divisions may be so deferred from sitting to sitting.
The process was that on each amendent or on each group of amendments upon which Your Honour ruled, the yeas and nays were asked for. Then the recorded division was deferred until tonight. Thus I do not think this is a good idea.
I do not think that intelligent people need bells to talk together. I did not need the bells to talk with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) a few minutes ago. I would have liked my hon. colleague to have responded to my invitation and to have come and talked with me too.
I am under the impression that in fact the ones who are delaying the Bill are the whole Opposition, not only the NDP. They have made a proposal which would have cut the votes by half. It was not enough for me, but I would have agreed to that. However, for a while the Official Opposition has been denying consent, so we will have twice the votes we would have had under the not so generous proposal of the NDP.
I am renewing my proposal. I am still willing to talk with the House Leaders. I have talked with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I do not think we need to have the bells ringing to have these talks. I am willing to meet with my colleague during the next vote in the lobby or in my office. However, I think it would not be in accordance with the Standing Orders, anyway, to have the bells ring at this stage. The bells have rung, and I think that is enough; the stupidity has gone far enough. I am willing to talk with all reasonable Members to shorten this proceeding. I invite my hon. colleague to come and talk now.
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to make one or two observations. First, we have proceeded motion by motion seriatim. In no case have we violated the Standing Orders or procedures of this House. In the case of deferred votes, this has been the practice of the House, without the bells.
In respect to the groupings, the Hon. Member is right. He has made some observations with respect to the groupings. In my interpretation to the House, a vote on one motion would sometimes deal with subsequent motions. We are paying careful attention as we go along to these situations. We are now coming into some of them. We have not up to this point.
However, the Chair is anxious to serve the House. At this stage we are following the votes as deferred, according to the expressed wish of the House up to this point. If the House Leaders wish to confer and come forward with unanimous agreement on some matters, certainly the Chair is a servant of the House where there is agreement. However, at this stage the Chair feels obliged to put the motions. It is perfectly true, as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has pointed out, that in some of the groupings we are facing the interpretation of the Chair has been that a vote on one motion will dispose of subsequent motions. We will make a careful note of these as we come to them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, whenever there are to be discussions with respect to suggested arrangements, the House Leader of this Party does not make a decision on his own; he consults his caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When I make an arrangement, it is done with the full approval and approbation of my colleagues. I do not go around telling the sheep how to operate. If we are to take a little time off, then I want an opportunity of finding out what are the proposals and discussing these matters. I will have a chat with my own colleagues. Then perhaps we could bring some sense into this place.
If I were the Government House Leader, I would not be skulking around in my office trying to pretend that I was running this whole show. I would run it and I would try to show some leadership, instead of sitting around here and causing this chaos to happen.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, my hon. and learned friend says that he would like to put the proposals to his caucus. The purpose of the meeting to which I invited him was to make a proposal so that he would have something to tell his caucus. Perhaps he will reconsider.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why not adjourn the House?


Mr. Speaker:: At this stage the Chair has no option but to proceed.


Security Intelligence Service


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek unanimous consent for the House to stand over until nine o'clock in the morning and recommence then.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The next vote is on Motion No. 43.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Chair could tell us approximately how many votes are remaining.


Mr. Speaker:: We are dealing with Motion No. 43, and there are 174 motions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: According to the Chair's rough estimate, we might make it by eleven o'clock tomorrow. We might not at the rate we are going.
The Clerk informs me that we have voted 28 times out of a possible 91. However, the Chair hesitates to predict whether or not that 91 figure is firm. It is a minimum of 91 votes that are indicated on the basis of the present procedure.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. My calculation was exactly like yours. If we are to go until noon tomorrow, we will lose tomorrow anyway, boys; you might as well decide to sleep tonight and finish her off tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent to the Hon. Member's proposal.
The next vote is on Motion No. 43. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 18
(a)	by striking out line 10 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor: "person shall intentionally disclose any information that the"
(b)	by striking out lines 16 to 23 at page 9 and substituting the following
therefor:
"and from which the identity of any other person who is or was a confidential source of information or assistance to the service can be inferred."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 89)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broad bent
Carney (Miss) Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga
Messrs.
Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Mountain)	(Broadview-Greenwood)	(Victoria-HHargrave	McKinnon	ShieldsHawkes	McKnight	SiddonHeap	McLean	SkellyHnatyshyn	McMillan	SpeyerHovdebo	Miller	StewartHowie	Mitges	TaylorKeeper	Munro	ThackerKempling	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	TowersKilgour	Murphy	VankoughnetKing	Nickerson	WaddellKristiansen	Nielsen	WenmanLambert	Nowlan	Young-95.NAYS	Messrs.	
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Frith
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joy a I
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Porte la nee
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-109.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 45. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bocks tael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont
(Division No. 90)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood) McKinnon McKnight McLean McMillan Miller Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-95.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Frith
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-107.
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I put a proposition to you? I think we are making some progress in terms of the question of deferred votes as opposed to consequential votes. The government House Leader has indicated that all votes are completely covered on the basis of deferral. I would put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of the vote on Motion No. 42, if that vote were in fact negatived, it would then require that we have a vote on Motion No. 43. This is the first time that Motion No. 43 will come before the House for deliberation and voting. The conventional way of dealing with a motion which has not been voted on before and which is only consequential to certain negative results on Motion No. 42 is that you place the question to the House on a voice vote. This is the normal procedure.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that this is the first time this question has been considered by the House. It is not a matter of dealing with an affirmative result on Motion No. 42 which would then deal with subsequent motions. We are dealing with a specific direction given by Your Honour with respect to groupings. You have indicated that a negative vote on Motion No. 42 would then require a separate, new, novel vote on Motion No. 43. I am putting that to you as an example. It seems to me that the normal procedure would be to then call a voice vote, at which time we could determine whether or not there will be a disposition on that basis.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the ringing of the bell is a matter which the House would have to decide depending upon the rules of the House. In that circumstance, there is the provision for five Members to cause the division bells to ring. I submit to you, Your Honour, that in that particular situation, because of the fact that arising from a negative vote is a subsequent motion which comes before the House for the first time, conventional and standard procedure is to ask for a voice vote.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is guided by past practice of the House. This is not the first time we have faced this situation. In the past, as I have been reliably informed by the Table officers, the practice has been the one we are now following. The practice has been that when the debate took place in the House and the voice vote was called, it was not logical, reasonable or in any way the practice of the House that the other motions which would be denied if the first motion were to be negatived could be voted on.
In the spirit of deferment, the intent of the House and the practice of the House has been to dispense with voice votes and bells and to follow the practice that we are now following. The Chair so rules.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, might I be heard on this very important procedural point? The procedure that we have been following has been concerning me all evening. The normally very sound advice of the Table does not meet with my recollection. |In.the!past, atreport'stage'of aiBill the Chair has deferred!


Security Intelligence Service
voting on the grouping of the motions. When the bells have finally been rung in accordance with the terms of the House order, then the groupings are called and voice divisions sought.
I see that you are shaking your head, Sir. However, I can remember Madam Speaker Sauve saying time and time again: "Shall I dispense with the bells?" We have always given that consent.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), whose experience the Chair does respect, the recollection of the present occupant of the Chair is quite the contrary. With deferred votes, the practice has been that there is a 15-minute bell at the beginning, a bell which was of a specified duration. Subsequent votes were taken by recorded division or by other agreement by unanimous consent without the bells and without voice votes. The Chair does not intend to innovate a practice at this stage of dealing with this series of recorded votes.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to query your ruling. I realize you have made a ruling, that is clear, and I do not intend to comment on it.

However, under the circumstances, I understand that this is the practice. With unanimous consent, in exceptional cases, we can do something that is different from the normal practice but something which would not set a precedent. Therefore, rather than seeking the unanimous consent for a 15-minute bell to dispose of Motion No. 43, which would be the effect of the request made by my learned colleagues-


Mr. Speaker:: We have already disposed of Motions Nos. 42, 43 and 45. We are now dealing with motions which are subsequent to Motion No. 45. I say this just to set the Hon. Member straight.


Yvon Pinard: I am referring to the motion following Motion No. 45, if you wish, or whichever motion on which they wish to ring the bells. Rather than seeking unanimous consent to have the bells ring for 15 minutes in order to call the Members to the House to dispose of the next motion, at this stage I think it would be useful and certainly humanitarian for you to seek unanimous consent to suspend the proceedings for 15 minutes, after which we would then return to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Proceedings are suspended for 15 minutes. There will be a five-minute bell at the end of the 15 minutes to call Members back to the chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness, there must be a method of calling Members back. I would suggest a very short five-minute bell.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a 15-minute suspension of proceedings. There will be a five-minute bell, and then we will resume proceedings. Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 1.17 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 1.32 a.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding, the Chair would like to say a word for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). The Chair has made some preliminary checks and, while there are some practices one way, there is perhaps a balance in the direction indicated by the Hon. Member for Yukon and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West. In the circumstances, the Chair, Adll certainly resume and examine the record more carefully.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can only express my gratitude to the Speaker for an obvious concern that I had after we were into the first five or six votes here.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest you continue to ask for votes. We are willing to keep these votes to a minimum. I think the Opposition Parties can speak for themselves. As far as we are concerned, this bill is one of the Government's priorities. You will see that on this side of the House, we are maintaining our traditional Liberal solidarity. We are prepared to sit all night, if necessary. We are going to pass this Bill if we have to sit without interruptions until five o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 46. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 25 to 33 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"the purpose."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 91)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Bosley	Cossitt (Mrs.)Andre	Bradley	CrosbyAnguish	Carney (Miss)	(Halifax West)Beatty	Clark	CrouseBenjamin	(Brandon-Souris)	DarlingBlaikie	Cooper	DeansBlenkarn	Corbett	de Jong
++YEAS
Security Intelligence Service
Dick
Domm
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Dupont Dupras Duquet
Messrs.
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
++NAYS
Messrs.
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Young-95.
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette
Weatherhead- 109.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
hand column will be noted under the heading "Deferred, June 19, 1984". There follows a note. The last clause of that note on the Order Paper reads as follows: "A negative vote on No. 45" which was the preceding vote which we took just before we recessed for 15 minutes, "necessitates separate votes on Nos. 46", the one we just concluded "and 47". We are coming up to No. 47 and I am concerned about the practices we are following here. I am suggesting that when the Chair calls Motion No. 47, the correct practice should be for the Chair to call for the yeas and nays and cause a voice division.
I can tell the Government House Leader now that we are prepared, in advance, to respond positively to the usual request of the Chair when the Chair calls for the yeas and nays and declares the winner of the voice division. The Chair then normally asks whether it should dispense with the ringing of the bells. If that question is put, I can tell you, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, that our response would be positive and we will dispense with the bells. I am concerned with the practice.
I submit to you, with all the strength at my command, that the practice which I have described here is the proper one backed up by all sorts of precedents in the House. I would suggest that you put the question in that fashion and cause the voice division. I can tell you that there will be no intentional bell ringing as far as we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are concerned. I cannot speak for all Members because, of course, any five Members can rise to cause that actual recorded division.


Mr. Speaker:: The task of the Chair is not an easy one. After midnight it gets more difficult. I can only observe that the Chair acted in terms of its own recollection. During the break a check was made. Clearly there are more precedents in the direction indicated by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) than in terms of the recollection of the present occupant of the Chair. In terms of the record of the majority of instances in the House there has been a voice vote called in such circumstances. The Chair obviously has certain difficulties at this point. Perhaps the House can show a little generosity. We will proceed with a voice vote at this point.


Yvon Pinard: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, you just admitted that you made an error and are changing your ruling.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to make this point once again. In so doing it is not my intention to reflect in any way on the action of the Chair during the last vote. I maintain that when calling Motion No. 46 the proper practice would have been for the Chair to have called for the yeas and nays rather than calling for the standing division. I cite page XXV of yesterday's Order Paper where the item in the left


Some Hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. President of the Privy Council is perfectly right. The Chair made a preliminary ruling on the basis of the best understanding of the Chair. The Chair made further investigations during the period of the recess.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair can only say that it does its best and in these circumstances the Chair apologizes to the House.
The next question is on Motion No. 47. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by striking out lines 27 to 33 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"disclosure of the information to any minister of the Crown is essential in the public interest and that interest clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, to that person."
(b)	by striking out line 38 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"disclosure, and shall submit a report to the Review Committee with respect to disclosures referred to in paragraphs 2(a)(b) and (c)."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
"officers, provided there shall be no breach of the Criminal Code."
(b) by striking out line 13 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor: "Review Committee, and the Attorney General of the province in which the employee may have acted unlawfully."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
(Division No. 92)


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
++YEAS


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is negatived on division.
The next question is on Motion No. 48. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the Motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
The next question is on Motion No. 50. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by the Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 20 (a) by striking out line 44 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lambert
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy Nickerson Nielsen Now Ian Nystrom Oberle Parker Patterson Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Halifax West)	Lawrence	SargeantCrouse	Lewis	SchellenbergerDarling	Lewycky	ScottDeans	MacDonald (Miss)	(Hamilton-Wde Jong	(Kingston and the Islands)	ScottDick	MacDougall	(Victoria-HalDomm	Malone	ShieldsEllis	Manly	SiddonElzinga	Mazankowski	SkellyEpp	McCain	SpeyerFennell	McCuish	StewartForrestall	McDermid	TaylorFraser	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood)	TowersFriesen	McKinnon	VankoughnetFulton	McKnight	WaddellGamble	McLean	WenmanGreenaway	McMillan	WilsonGustafson	Miller
NAYS Messrs.	Wise Young-95.Appolloni (Mrs.)	Baker	Begin (Miss)Axworthy	Beauchamp-Niquet	BlaisBachand	(Mrs.)	Bockstael
Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Messrs.
FI is
Foster
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-111.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated. The next vote is on Motion No. 51. Mr. Allmand, seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 20
(a)	by adding immediately after line 44 at page 10 the following:
"(2) The Director and employes in performing the duties and functions of the Service under Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of this Act may never act beyond the limits prescribed by the Act and any such activity will constitute an offense subject to criminal prosecution.
(3) The Service shall have no authority to carry on operational activities to destabilize or disrupt individuals or groups which might otherwise be investigated under this section."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 13 at page 11 the following:
"(5) No other agency or agents in Canada shall carry out any or all of the responsibilities assigned by this Act to the Service in Section 12 nor have access to the warrants provided for in Section 21."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Security Intelligence Service And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 93)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alt house
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crombie Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise
Young-93.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	de Corneille	HarquailAxworthy	Demers	HendersonBachand	Deniger	HerbertBaker	Dingwall	Hervieux-PayettBeauchamp-Niquet	Dion	(Mrs.) '(Mrs.)	Dionne	HopkinsBegin (Miss)	(Chicoutimi)	HudeckiBlais	Dubois	IsabelleBockstael	Duclos	IttinuarBossy	Dupont	JoyalBreau	Dupras	KaplanBurghardt	Duquet	KellyCampbell (Miss)	Ethier	Killens (Mrs.)(South West Nova)	Evans	LachanceCampbell	Ferguson	Lajoie(LaSalle)	Fisher	LandersCampbell	Fleming	Lang(Cardigan)	Flis	LapierreCollenette	Foster	LapointeComtois	Fox	(Charlevoix)Corbin	Garant	LeBlancCorriveau	Gauthier	LeducCosgrove	Gendron	LefebvreCote (Mrs.)	Gingras	l umleyCousineau	Gourd	MacBainCullen	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacEachenCyr	Gourde	MacGuiganDaudlin	(Levis)	MackaseyDawson	Gray	MacLarenDe Bane	Guilbault	MacLellan
Security Intelligence Service
Malepart	Penner	Roy	Forrestall	Lewycky	ParkerMaltais	Peterson	Savard	Fraser	MacDonald (Miss)	PattersonMarceau	Pinard	Schroder	Fretz	(Kingston and the Islands)	ReidMasse	Portelance	Simmons	Friesen	MacDougall	(St. CatharinMasters	Regan	Smith	Fulton	Malone	RiisMcRae	Reid	Tardif	Gamble	Manly	RobinsonNicholson (Miss)	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Tessier	Greenaway	Mazankowski	(Burnaby)Ostiguy	Robinson	Tousignant	Gustafson	McCain	SargeantOuellet	(Etobicoke- La keshore)	Turner	Halliday	McCuish	SchellenbergerParent	Rompkey	Veillette	Hamilton	McDermid	ScottPelletier	Rossi	Watson Weatherhead-113.	(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)	McDonald (Ms.) (Broadview-Greenwood)	(Hamilton-V Scott


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, on the motion of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand), was his name read out as having voted?


Mr. Speaker:: He was not in the Chamber and could not have voted.
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-93.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been here now for five hours and I will only take a second. If we are to be here another five hours could you turn off the television lights?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 can help the Hon. Member in this respect. There has been some dimming. Order, please.
1 have all the time in the world if Hon. Members do not wish to come to order.
There has been a request concerning the lights of the House. I have made some inquiries. The question relates to television taping. If we reduce the intensity of the lights the quality of the tapes will be very seriously impaired.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have expressed their views.
The next vote is on Motion No. 52. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
I understand we have a grouping subsequent to this motion.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Ethier	LumleyAxworthy	Evans	MacBainBachand	Ferguson	MacEachenBaker	Fisher	MacGuiganBeauchamp-Niquet	Fleming	Mackasey(Mrs.)	FI is	MacLarenBegin (Miss)	Foster	MacLellanBlais	Fox	MaltaisBockstael	Garant	MarceauBossy	Gauthier	MasseBreau	Gendron	MastersBurghardt	Gingras	McRaeCampbell (Miss)	Gourde	Nicholson (Miss)(South West Nova)	(Levis)	OstiguyCampbell	Gray	Ouellet(LaSalle)	Guilbault	ParentCampbell	Harquail	Pelletier(Cardigan)	Henderson	PennerCollenette	Herbert	PetersonComtois	Hervieux-Payette	PortelanceCorbin	(Mrs.)	ReganCosgrove	Hopkins	ReidCousineau	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cullen	Isabelle	RobinsonCyr	Ittinuar	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Daudlin	Joyal	RompkeyDawson	Kaplan	RossiDe Bane	Kelly	Royde Corneille	Killens (Mrs.)	SavardDemers	Lachance	SchroderDeniger	Lajoie	SimmonsDingwall	Landers	SmithDion	Lang	TardifDionne	Lapierre	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	Lapointe	TousignantDubois	(Charlevoix)	TurnerDuclos	LeBlanc	VeilletteDupont	Leduc	WatsonDupras	Lefebvre	Weatherhead-107.Althouse	(.Division No. 94)
YEAS Messrs. Carney (Miss)	DarlingAndre	Clark	DeansAnguish	(Brandon-Souris)	de JongBeatty	Cooper	DickBenjamin	Corbett	DommBlaikie	Cossitt (Mrs.)	EllisBlenkarn	Crosby	ElzingaBosley	(Halifax West)	EppBradley	Crouse	Fennell


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we leave these six lights on and turn off the ones that are in our eyes?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You indicated that we had 91 votes. We have completed 31 and that leaves 60 votes. At five per hour there are 12 more hours, gang.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say in response to the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) that we have done all we can if there is going to be any television taping at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
The next vote is on Motion No. 54. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21
(a)	by striking out line 16 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"purpose believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that"
(b)	by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"the security of Canada, the"
(c)	by striking out lines 31 to 35 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"on reasonable and probable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada;"
(d)	by striking out lines 34 to 39 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Where the judge to whom an application under subsection (1) is made is of the opinion that the intelligence to be gained through the issuance of a warrant outweighs the harm to privacy that will result and where the judge is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the"
(e)	by striking out lines 28 to 34 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"subsection (3) for a period exceeding 60 days."
(f)	by adding immediately after line 34 at page 13 the following:
"(6) A warrant shall not be issued under subsection (3) authorizing any intrusive technique for the purpose of intercepting any communication or obtaining any information, record, or thing for which such a warrant may not be issued as of May 31, 1984."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All of those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please rise.
During the taking of the vote:


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order cannot be heard during a vote. It can be heard immediately after.
(Division No. 95)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Ethier Evans Ferguson Fisher Fleming FI is Foster Fox Garant Gauthier Gendron Gingras Gourde (Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy N ickerson Nielsen Nowlan Nystrom Obcrle Parker Patterson Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-89.
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder


Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Simmons	Tousignant	WatsonSmith	Turner	Weatherhead-109.Tessier	Veillette


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 55. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 35 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"subject to the Statistics Act and the Income Tax Act where the judge".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Evans	LeducAxworthy	Ferguson	LumleyBachand	Fisher	MacBainBaker	Fleming	MacEachenBeauchamp-N iquet	Flis	MacGuigan(Mrs.)	Foster	MackaseyBegin (Miss)	Fox	MacLarenBlais	Frith	MacLellanBockstael	Garant	MaltaisBossy	Gauthier	MarceauBreau	Gendron	MasseBurghardt	Gingras	MastersCampbell (Miss)	Gourd	McCauley(South West Nova)	(A rgen teu i 1- Pa pi nea u)	McRaeCampbell	Gourde	Nicholson (Miss)(LaSalle)	(Levis)	OueiletCampbell	Gray	Parent(Cardigan)	Harquail	PennerCoilenette	Henderson	PinardComtois	Herbert	Por tela neeCorbin	Hervieux-Payette	ReganCorriveau	(Mrs.)	ReidCosgrove	Hopkins	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cote (Mrs.)	Hudecki	RobinsonCousineau	Isabelle	(Etobicoke- La keshore)Cullen	Ittinuar	RompkeyCyr	Johnston	RossiDaudlin	Joyal	RoyDawson	Kaplan	Savardde Corneille	Kelly	SchroderDemers	Killens (Mrs.)	SimmonsDeniger	Lachance	SmithDingwall	Lajoie	TardifDionne	Landers	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	Lang	TousignantDubois	Lapierre	TurnerDupras	Lapointe	VeilletteDuquet	(Charlevoix)	WatsonEthier	LeBlanc	Weatherhead-106.
(Division No. 96)
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
++YEAS
Messrs.
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
King
Kristiansen
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood) McKinnon McMillan Miller Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-85.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have now been five hours voting. In the 27 years I have been here, this has now exceeded even the income tax revision Bill in 1970 which was about 10 times as thick as this Bill. This impasse can only be brought about by-I do not know what it is-stubbornness, incompetence, but it certainly is a breakdown in parliamentary leaderhship. I regret to say this, but I have no further intention of participating in this charade on parliamentarianism tonight. That's it. I withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 56. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 35 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"subject to the Statistics Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act where the judge"
It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Isabelle	MacGuigan	ReidIttinuar	Mackasey	(Kenora-Rainy Ri\Johnston	MacLaren	RobinsonJoyal	MacLellan	(Etobicoke- LakeshKaplan	Malepart	RompkeyKelly	Maltais	RossiKillens (Mrs.)	Marceau	RoyLachance	Masse	SavardLajoie	Masters	SchroderLanders	McCauley	SimmonsLang	McRae	SmithLapierre	Nicholson (Miss)	TardifLapointe	Ouellet	Tessier(Charlevoix)	Parent	TousignantLeBlanc	Pelletier	TurnerLeduc	Penner	VeilletteLefebvre	Peterson	WatsonLumley	Pinard	Weatherhead- 108.MacBainRegan	
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Ellis Elzinga Epp Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday
(.Division No. 97)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood) McLean McMillan Miller Mitges Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Siddon Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Young-77.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 57. Mr. Allmand, seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 32 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"meaning of paragraphs (c) and (d) of the definition".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
Axworthy	Cote (Mrs.)	FI is	Bachand Baker	Cousineau Cullen	Foster Fox	(Division No.	98)Beauchamp-N iquet	Cyr	Frith	YEAS	(Mrs.)	Daudlin	Garant	Begin (Miss)	Dawson	Gauthier	Messrs.	Blais	de Corneille	Gendron	Bockstael	Demers	Gingras	Althouse	Crouse	GreenawayBossy	Deniger	Gourd	Andre	Darling	GustafsonBreau	Dingwall	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Anguish	Deans	HallidayBurghardt	Dion	Gourde	Beatty	de Jong	HargraveCampbell (Miss)	Dionne	(Levis)	Benjamin	Ellis	Hawkes(South West Nova)	(Chicoutimi)	Gray	Blaikie	Elzinga	HeapCampbell	Dubois	Guilbault	Blenkarn	Epp	Hnatyshyn(LaSalle)	Duclos	Harquail	Bosley	Fennell	HovdeboCampbell	Dupras	Henderson	Clark	Forrestall	Howie(Cardigan)	Duquet	Herbert	(Brandon-Souris)	Fraser	KeeperComtois	Evans	Hervieux-Payette	Corbett	Fretz	KemplingCorbin	Ferguson	(Mrs.) '	Cossitt (Mrs.)	Friesen	KilgourCorriveau	Fisher	Hopkins	Crosby	Fulton	KingCosgrove	Fleming	Hudecki	(Halifax West)	Gamble	Lawrence
Security Intelligence Service
Lewycky	Messrs. Munro	SargeantMacDougall	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	SchellenbergerMalone	Murphy	ScottManly	Nickerson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Mazankowski	Nielsen	ScottMcCain	Nowlan	(Victoria-Haliburton)McCuish	Nystrom	SiddonMcDermid	Oberle	StewartMcDonald (Ms.)	Parker	Taylor(Broadview-Greenwood) Patterson	ThackerMcKnight	Reid	TowersMcLean	(St. Catharines)	VankoughnetMcMillan	Riis	WaddellMiller	Robinson	WenmanMitges	(Burnaby)	Young-79.Appolloni (Mrs.)	NAYS Messrs. Flis	LefebvreAxworthy	Foster	LumleyBachand	Fox	MacBainBaker	Frith	MacGuiganBlais	Garant	MackaseyBockstael	Gauthier	MacLarenBossy	Gendron	MacLellanBreau	Gingras	MalepartBurghardt	Gourd	MaltaisCampbell (Miss)	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Marceau(South West Nova)	Gourde	MasseCampbell	(Levis)	Masters(LaSalle)	Gray	McCauleyCampbell	Guilbault	McRae(Cardigan)	Harquail	Nicholson (Miss)Comtois	Henderson	OuelletCorbin	Herbert	ParentCorriveau	Hervieux-Payette	PennerCosgrove	(Mrs.)	PetersonCote (Mrs.)	Hopkins	PinardCousineau	Hudecki	ReganCullen	Isabelle	ReidCyr	Ittinuar	(Kenora-Rainy River)Daudlin	Johnston	Robinsonde Corneille	Joyal	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Demers	Kaplan	RompkeyDeniger	Kelly	RossiDingwall	Killens (Mrs.)	RoyDion	Lachance	SavardDionne	Lajoie	Schroder(Chicoutimi)	Landers	SimmonsDubois	Lang	SmithDuclos	Lapointe	TessierDupras	(Charlevoix)	TousignantFerguson	LeBlanc	TurnerFisher	Leduc	Weatherhead-99.Fleming Mr. Speaker:	I declare the motion defeated.	
The next question is on Motion No. 58. Mr. Allmand, seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 13 the following:
"(6) No application made to a judge under this section may be heard or approved unless an intervenor, appointed from a panel of lawyers by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has had the opportunity to cross-examine and make representations on the application in order to protect any constitutional and civil rights."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 99)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Gamble	MunroAndre	Greenaway	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Anguish	Gustafson	MurphyBeatty	Halliday	NowlanBenjamin	Hargrave	NystromBlaikie	Hawkes	OberleBlcnkarn	Heap	ParkerBosley	Hnatyshyn	PattersonBradley	Hovdebo	ReidClark	Howie	(St. Catharines)(Brandon-Souris)	Keeper	RiisCorbett	Kempling	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	Kilgour	(Burnaby)Crosby	King	Sargeant(Halifax West)	Kristiansen	SchellenbergerCrouse	Lawrence	ScottDarling	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Deans	Lewycky	Scottde Jong	MacDougall	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dick	Malone	SiddonDomm	Manly	StewartEllis	Mazankowski	TaylorElzinga	McCuish	ThackerEpp	McDermid	TowersFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	VankoughnetForrestall	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WenmanFraser	McKnight	WiseFretz	McLean	Young-80.Friesen	Miller	Fulton	Mitges
NAYS Messrs.	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Dubois	IttinuarAxworthy	Duclos	JohnstonBachand	Dupras	JoyalBeauchamp-N iquet	Ethier	Kaplan(Mrs.)	Evans	KellyBlais	Ferguson	LajoieBockstael	Fisher	LandersBossy	Fleming	LangBreau	Flis	LapierreBurghardt	Foster	LeBlancCampbell (Miss)	Fox	Leduc(South West Nova)	Frith	LefebvreCampbell	Garant	Lumley(LaSalle)	Gauthier	MacBainCampbell	Gendron	MacGuigan(Cardigan)	Gingras	MackaseyCollenette	Gourd	MacLarenComtois	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacLellanCorbin	Gourde	MaltaisCorriveau	(Levis)	MarceauCosgrove	Gray	MasseCote (Mrs.)	Guilbault	MastersCousineau	Harquail	McCauleyCyr	Henderson	McRaeDaudlin	Herbert	Nicholson (Miss)de Corneille	Hervieux-Payette	OuelletDemers	(Mrs.)	ParentDeniger	Hopkins	PennerDingwall	Hudecki	PetersonDion	Isabelle	Pinard
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.	NAYS
Portelance	Rompkey	SmithRegan	Rossi	TessierReid	Roy	Tousignant(Kenora-Rainy River)	Savard	WatsonRobinson	Schroder	Weatherhead-98.(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Simmons


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 59. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 13 the following:
"(6) A warrant shall not be issued under subsection 3 authorizing the obtaining of any information or thing or intercepting any communication which would reveal confidential medical records except with the consent of the patient."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 100)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Glzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Nickerson
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Siddon Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wise-76.
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove C6te (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Ethier Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Por tela nee
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-105.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the House that the vote which was just recovered on Motion No. 59 be applied to Motion No. 60.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker, as long as those Hon. Members who have come in from the time of that vote will be able to declare themselves as additional votes for the purpose of this motion.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would have let it go on division, but, of course, if you want to have the vote apply, I will be happy to agree to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the vote on Motion No. 59 be applied to Motion No. 60, with the addition of which Hon. Members? Would they please rise? Mr. Cooper, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Andre, Mr. Blenkarn, Mr. Manly, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Young, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Turner, Madame Begin, Mrs. Erola, Mr. Lachance, Mr. Dubois, Mr. Gourde, Levis and Mr. Campbell, La Salle. Is that correct?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 22.


Security Intelligence Service
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 101)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alt house
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-85.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 61. It should be noted that the vote on Motion No. 61 will also dispose of Motion No. 62. Mr. Kaplan, seconded by Mr. Campbell, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 38 to 40 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"to apply for such a warrant after having obtained the approval of the Minister, the judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding the period for which the warrant may be issued pursuant to subsection 21(5) if satisfied by".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Erola (Mrs.)	LeBlanc	Axworthy	Ethier	Leduc	Bachand Baker	Evans Ferguson	Lefebvre Lumley	(Division No. 102)	Beauchamp-Niquet	Fisher	MacBain	(Mrs.)	Fleming	MacGuigan	YEAS	Begin (Miss)	Flis	Mackasey	Blais	Foster	MacLaren	Messrs.	Bockstael	Fox	MacLellan	Bossy	Frith	Maltais	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Dion	IsabelleBreau	Garant	Marceau	Axworthy	Dionne	IttinuarBurghardt	Gauthier	Masse	Bachand	(Chicoutimi)	JohnstonCampbell (Miss)	Gendron	Masters	Baker	Dubois	Joyal(South West Nova)	Gingras	McCauley	Beauchamp-N iquet	Duclos	KaplanCampbell	Gourd	McRae	(Mrs.)	Dupras	Lachance(LaSalle)	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Nicholson (Miss)	Begin (Miss)	Duquet	LajoieCampbell	Gourde	Ouellet	Blais	Erola (Mrs.)	Landers(Cardigan)	(Levis)	Parent	Bockstael	Ethier	LangCollenette	Gray	Pelletier	Bossy	Evans	LapierreComtois	Guilbault	Penner	Breau	Ferguson	LapointeCorbin	Harquail	Peterson	Burghardt	Fisher	(Charlevoix)Corriveau	Henderson	Pinard	Campbell (Miss)	Fleming	LeBlancCosgrove	Herbert	Portelance	(South West Nova)	Flis	LeducCote (Mrs.)	Hervieux-Payette	Regan	Campbell	Foster	LumleyCousineau	(Mrs.)	Reid	(LaSalle)	Fox	MacBainCullen	Hopkins	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Campbell	Frith	MacGuiganCyr	Hudecki	Robinson	(Cardigan)	Garant	MackaseyDaudlin	Isabelle	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	Collenette	Gauthier	MacLarenDawson	Ittinuar	Rompkey	Corbin	Gendron	MacLellande Corneille	Johnston	Rossi	Corriveau	Gingras	MaltaisDemers	Joyal	Savard	Cosgrove	Gourde	MarceauDeniger	Kaplan	Schroder	Cote (Mrs.)	(Levis)	MasseDingwall	Kelly	Simmons	Cousineau	Gray	MastersDion	Lachance	Smith	Cullen	Guilbault	McCauleyDionne	Lajoie	Tardif	Cyr	Harquail	McRae(Chicoutimi)	Landers	Tessier	Daudlin	Henderson	Nicholson (Miss)Dubois	Lang	Tousignant	Dawson	Herbert	OuelletDuclos	Lapierre	Turner	de Corneille	Hervieux-Payette	ParentDupras	Lapointe	Veillette	Demers	(Mrs.)	PelletierDuquet	(Charlevoix)	Watson	Deniger	Hopkins	PennerWeatherhead-110.	Dingwall	Hudecki	Peterson
Pinard	Rompkey
Portelance	Rossi
Regan	Roy
Reid	Savard
(Kenora-Rainy River)	Simmons
Robinson	Smith
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)
Messrs.
Tardif
Tessier
Tousignant
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead- 106.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. This vote also disposes of Motion No. 62.
The next vote is on Motion No. 63. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 44 at page 13 and lines 1 and 2 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"threat to the security of Canada; and".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Security Intelligence Service
The next vote is on Motion No. 64. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 103)
++YEAS
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
Demers
Deniger
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
++NAYS
Messrs.
Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Leduc
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Siddon Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Young-78.
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-101.


Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the vote which has just been recorded on Motion No. 64 to be applied to Motion Nos. 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. President of the Privy Council, but according to the decision of the Chair earlier, the vote on Motion No. 64 will apply to Motion Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 80, 82, 87, 88, 90, 92, 98, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, and 112. That was the interpretation of the grouping by the Chair. The Hon. President of the Privy Council sought unanimous consent for two additional motions.
King	McLean	RobinsonKristiansen	Miller	(Burnaby)Lawrence	Mitges	SargeantLewis	Munro	SchellenbergerLewycky	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	ScottMacDougall	Murphy	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Malone	Nickerson	ScottManly	Nielsen	(Victoria-Haliburton)Mazankowski	Nowlan	SiddonMcCain	Nystrom	TaylorMcCuish	Oberle	ThackerMcDermid	Parker	TowersMcDonald (Ms.)	Reid	Vankoughnet(Broadview-Greenwood)	(St. Catharines)	WaddellMcKnight	Riis	WenmanYoung-78.NAYS	Messrs.


Yvon Pinard: That is a very good decision, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you. I am very pleased. I think you will get unanimous consent for the vote recorded on Motion No. 64 to apply to those motions between Motion No. 64 and Motion No. 78 exclusively, except for Motion No. 68. I hope to be understood because there are some motions between Motion No. 64 and Motion No. 78 that you have not mentioned. We would like to see them disposed of with the vote on Motion No. 64, except for Motion No. 68.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear whether the Government House Leader included Motion No. 78.


Yvon Pinard: No.


Ian Deans: He did not. For Motion Nos. 66 and 67 that is fine. Perhaps you could read others out to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the vote on Motion No. 64 apply to Motion No. 66?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 66. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 104)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Deans
Anguish	Dick
Beatty	Domm
Benjamin	Ellis
Blaikie	Elzinga
Bosley	Epp
Clark	Fennell
(Brandon-Souris)	For restall
Cooper	Fraser
Cossitt (Mrs.)	Fretz
Crosby	Friesen
(Halifax West)	Fulton
Crouse	Gamble
Darling	Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Evans	LumleyAxworthy	Ferguson	MacBainBachand	Fisher	MacGuiganBaker	Fleming	MackaseyBeauchamp-Niquet	Flis	MacLaren(Mrs.)	Foster	MacLellanBegin (Miss)	Fox	MaltaisBockstacl	Garant	MarceauBossy	Gauthier	MasseBurghardt	Gendron	MastersCampbell (Miss)	Gourd	McRae(South West Nova)	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	OstiguyCampbell	Gourde	Ouellet(LaSalle)	(Levis)	ParentCampbell	Gray	Pelletier(Cardigan)	Guilbault	PennerCollenette	Harquail	PetersonCorbin	Henderson	PinardCorriveau	Herbert	PortelanceCosgrove	Hervieux-Payette	ReganCote (Mrs.)	(Mrs.)	ReidCousineau	Hopkins	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cullen	Hudecki	RobinsonCyr	Isabelle	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Daudlin	Ittinuar	RompkeyDawson	Johnston	RoyDemers	Joyal	SavardDeniger	Kaplan	SchroderDingwall	Killens (Mrs.)	SimmonsDion	Lachance	SmithDionne	Landers	Tardif(Chicoutimi)	Lang	TessierDubois	Lapierre	TousignantDuclos	Lapointe	TurnerDupont	(Charlevoix)	VeilletteDupras	Leduc	WatsonDuquet	Lefebvre	Weatherhead-101.
Erola (Mrs.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 66 defeated. Shall the vote on Motion No. 64 apply to Motion No. 67?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 67. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 24 by striking out lines 32 to 36 at page 14 and substituting the following therefore:
"rant".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


(Division No. 105)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Siddon Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Young-78.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Bea uch a m p- N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cdte (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-101.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 67 defeated. Shall vote on Motion No. 64 apply to Motion No. 75?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
the
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 75. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 106)
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday
++YEAS
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Siddon Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Young-78.
++NAYS
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
Demers
Deniger
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Rompkey
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Tardif
Tessier
Tousignant
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead-101.


Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 75 defeated. Shall the vote on Motion No. 64 apply to Motion No. 77?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 77. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. de Jong, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Messrs.
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Roy Savard Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Tardif
Tessier
Tousignant
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead-101.
(Division No. 107)
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broad view-Green wood) McKnight McLean Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Siddon Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Young-78.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 77 defeated. The next vote is on Motion No. 68. Mr. Fraser (Vancouver South), seconded by Mr. Neil, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 24 by striking out lines 34 to 36 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"person acting in accordance with such a warrant".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 108)
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand	Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)	Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.) Hopkins	Althouse	YEAS Messrs.	Baker	Dubois	Hudecki	Fulton	McCain	Beauchamp-Niquet	Duclos	Isabelle	Anguish	Gamble	McCuish	(Mrs.)	Dupont	Ittinuar	Beatty	Greenaway	McDermid	Begin (Miss)	Dupras	Johnston	Blaikie	Gustafson	McDonald (Ms.)	MBockstael	Duquet	Joyal	Bosley	Halliday	(Broadview-Greenwood)	Bossy	Erola (Mrs.)	Kaplan	Bradley	Hamilton	McKnight	Burghardt	Evans	Killens (Mrs.)	Clark	(Qu'Appelle- Moose	McLean	Campbell (Miss)	Ferguson	Lachance	(Brandon-Souris)	Mountain)	Miller	(South West Nova)	Fisher	Landers	Cooper	Hargrave	Mitges	Campbell	Fleming	Lang	Cossitt (Mrs.)	Hawkes	Munro	(LaSalle)	FI is	Lapierre	Crosby	Heap	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Campbell	Foster	Lapointe	(Halifax West)	Hnatyshyn	Murphy	(Cardigan)	Fox	(Charlevoix)	Crouse	Hovdebo	Nickerson	Collenette	Garant	Leduc	Darling	Howie	Nowlan	Corbin	Gauthier	Lefebvre	Deans	Keeper	Nystrom	Corriveau	Gendron	Lumley	de Jong	Kempling	Oberle	Cosgrove	Gourd	MacBain	Dick	Kilgour	Parker	nCote (Mrs.)	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacGuigan	Domm	King	Reid	Cousineau	Gourde	Mackasey	Ellis	Kristiansen	(St. Catharines)	>Cullen	(Levis)	MacLaren	Elzinga	Lawrence	Riis	Cyr	Gray	MacLellan	Epp	Lewis	Robinson	Daudlin	Guilbault	Maltais	Fennell	Lewycky	(Burnaby)	Dawson	Harquail	Marceau	Forrestall	MacDougall	Sargeant	1Demers	Henderson	Masse	Fraser	Malone	Schellenberger	Deniger Dingwall	Herbert	Masters	Fretz Friesen	Manly Mazankowski	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	I
Messrs.
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Breau
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
De Bane
Demers
Deniger
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-80.
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Rompkey
Rossi
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Tardif
Tessier
Tousignant
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead-105.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated. The next vote is on Motion No. 78. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Fulton, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 31
(a) by striking out line 16 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"Parliament, the"
(b) by striking out lines 26 to 31 at page 16.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 109)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle) Collenette Comtois Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lachance
Lawrence
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McLean
Miller
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
LeBlanc
Leduc
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Taylor
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-77.
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Peterson
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-101.


Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated. This vote also disposes of Motion No. 79.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House so that the vote that has just been recorded on Motion No. 78 disposes of Motions Nos. 85 and 86.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the vote which has been recorded for Motion No. 78 will also apply to No. 85?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) had the courage to vote with the Opposition on No. 78. I am not sure that he wants to vote with us on the other motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the vote which applied to Motion No. 78 shall also apply to Motion No. 85?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any Members who wish to be recorded who did not vote on the previous motion?
Recording as negatived votes: Mr. McKnight, Mr. Fretz, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Fennell, Mr. Thacker, Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Corbett, and Mr. Stewart.
Recorded as affirmative votes: Mr. Penner, Mr. Daudlin, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Pinard.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 85.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 110)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Fraser	LewyckyAnguish	Fretz	MacDougallBeatty	Friesen	MaloneBlaikie	Fulton	ManlyBosley	Gamble	MazankowskiBradley	Greenaway	McCainClark	Gustafson	McCuish(Brandon-Souris)	Halliday	McDermidCooper	Hamilton	McDonald (Ms.)Corbett	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	(Broadview-Greenwood)Cossitt (Mrs.)	Mountain)	McKnightCrosby	Hargrave	McLean(Halifax West)	Hawkes	MillerCrouse	Heap	MitgesDarling	Hnatyshyn	MunroDeans	Hovdebo	(Esquimalt-Saanich)de Jong	Howie	MurphyDick	Keeper	NickersonDomm	Kempling	NielsenEllis	Kilgour	NowlanElzinga	King	NystromEpp	Kristiansen	OberleFennell	Lawrence	ParkerForrestall	Lewis	
Messrs.
Reid
(St. Catharines) Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle) Collenette Comtois Corriveau Cosgrove C6te (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
FI is
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
LeBlanc
Leduc
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-83.
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead- 106.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 85 defeated.
Shall the vote which applied to Motion No. 85 also apply to Motion No. 86?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 86.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 38 to 44 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Each member of the Review Committee shall be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding seven years." and by renumbering subsection (4) accordingly.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. Ill)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Beatty	BosleyAnguish	Blaikie	Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle) Collenette Comtois Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Messrs.
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
LeBlanc
Leduc
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-83.
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Rompkey
Rossi
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Smith
Tardif
Tessier
Tousignant
Turner
Veillette
Watson
W ea t he r head- 106.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I shall vote negatively on Motions Nos. 85 and 86.


Mr. Speaker:: The record should indicate a negative vote for the Hon. Member for Rosemount (Mr. Lachance) on Motions Nos. 85 and 86. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 86 defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 93. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:
Motion No. 93.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 5 to 7 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"(vi) to review the regulations,
(vii)	to compile and analyze statistics on the operational activities of the service,
(viii)	to review criteria for security assessments pursuant to subsection 13,
(ix)	to review the relationships between the service and all other bodies and agencies engaged in security or intelligence functions in Canada, and
(x)	to review terms and conditions of employment established by the director pursuant to section 8 of this Act;"
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 112)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway , Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.
++NAYS
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Messrs.
Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cot6 (Mrs.)
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Dingwall Dion Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Flis
Foster
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)


Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Landers Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Ostiguy
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-100.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The next motion, Motion No. 94, is in the name of an Hon. Member in the Conservative Party. I would ask for unanimous consent that the vote recorded on Motion No. 68, also in the name of the Conservative Party, be applied to Motion No. 94.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the vote which applied to Motion No. 68 also apply to Motion No. 94?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: Motion No. 94.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 38 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 19 the following:
"(b) to review, generally, the effectiveness and the propriety of Canada's security and intelligence functions and arrangements, including such functions as are carried on by any agency, department or institution of the Government of Canada;"
and by re-numbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 113)
Althouse	Fulton	McCainAnguish	Gamble	McCuishBeatty	Greenaway	McDermidBlaikie	Gustafson	McDonald (Ms.)Bosley	Halliday	(Broadview-Greenwood)Bradley	Hamilton	McKnightClark	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McLean(Brandon-Souris)	Mountain)	MillerCooper	Hargrave	MitgesCossitt (Mrs.)	Hawkes	MunroCrosby	Heap	(Esquimalt-Saanich)(Halifax West)	Hnatyshyn	MurphyCrouse	Hovdebo	NickersonDarling	Howie	NowlanDeans	Keeper	Nystromde Jong	Kempling	OberleDick	Kilgour	ParkerDomm	King	ReidEllis	Kristiansen	(St. Catharines)Elzinga	Lawrence	RiisEpp	Lewis	RobinsonFennell	Lewycky	(Burnaby)Forrestall	MacDougall	SargeantFraser	Malone	SchellenbergerFretz	Manly	ScottFriesen	Mazankowski	(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Messrs.
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss) Bockstael Bossy Breau
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin De Bane Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Eroia (Mrs.)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-80.
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Rompkey
Rossi
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Tardif
Tessier
Tousignant
Turner
Veillette
Watson
W cat her head-105.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the recording of the vote on Motion No. 68. Could I be recorded as well as on this vote?


Mr. Speaker:: There is no difficulty adding the Hon. Member's vote to this vote, but I cannot change the established record.
On the basis of the vote on Motion No. 68 plus the vote of the Hon. Member for Regina East, I declare motion No. 94 defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 95. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
The next vote is on Motion No. 96. Mr. Kaplan, seconded by Mr. Blais, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 39
(a)	by striking out line 27 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"evidence, but subject to subsection (3), the Review Committee is entitled"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 42 at page 19 the following:
"(3) No information described in subsection (2), other than a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada in respect of which subsection 36.3(1) of the Canada Evidence Act applies, may be withheld from the Committee on any grounds."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 114)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Axworthy	Collenette	DuboisBachand	Comtois	DupontBaker	Corbin	DuprasBeauchamp-Niquet	Corriveau	Duquet(Mrs.)	Cosgrove	Erola (Mrs.)Begin (Miss)	Cousineau	EvansBlais	Cyr	FergusonBockstael	Daudlin	FisherBossy	Dawson	FlemingBreau	De Bane	FlisBurghardt	de Corneille	FosterCampbell (Miss)	Demers	Fox(South West Nova)	Deniger	FrithCampbell	Dingwall	Gauthier(LaSalle)	Dion	GendronCampbell	Dionne	Gingras(Cardigan)	(Chicoutimi)
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Gourd	Lang	Pelletier
(Argenteuil-Papineau) Lapierre		Penner _
Gourde	Lapointe	Peterson(Levis)	(Charlevoix)	PinardGray	LeBlanc	ReganHarquail	Leduc	ReidHenderson	Lefebvre	(Kenora-Rainy River)Herbert	Lumley	RobinsonHervieux-Payette	MacBain	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)(Mrs.)	MacGuigan	RossiHopkins	Mackasey	SavardHudecki	MacLaren	SchroderIsabelle	MacLellan	SmithIttinuar	Maltais	TessierJoyal	Marceau	TousignantKaplan	Masse	TurnerKelly	Masters	VeilletteKillens (Mrs.)	McRae	WatsonLajoie Landers	Ostiguy Parent
NAYS Messrs.	Weatherhead-98.Althouse	Gustafson	MunroAnguish	Halliday	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Beatty	Hamilton	MurphyBenjamin	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NickersonBlaikie	Mountain)	NielsenBosley	Hargrave	NowlanBradley	Hawkes	NystromClark	Heap	Oberle(Brandon-Souris)	Hnatyshyn	ParkerCooper	Hovdebo	ReidCorbett	Howie	(St. Catharines)Cossitt (Mrs.)	Keeper	RiisCrosby	Kempling	Robinson(Halifax West)	Kilgour	(Burnaby)Crouse	King	SargeantDarling	Lachance	SchellenbergerDeans	Lawrence	Scottde Jong	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dick	Lewycky	ScottDomm	MacDougall	(Victoria-Haliburton)Ellis	Malone	SiddonElzinga	Manly	SkellyEpp	Mazankowski	StewartFennell	McCain	TaylorForrestall	McCuish	ThackerFraser	McDermid	T owersFretz	McDonald (Ms.)	VankoughnetFriesen	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WaddellFulton	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WiseGreenaway	Miller Mitges	Young-84.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.		
The next vote is on Motion No. 97. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moves:		
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out lines 30 to 32 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor: "Inspector General and to receive from the".		
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Security Intelligence Service Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have just rejected Motion No. 97 on division. I seek unanimous consent for the same result to be applied to the following motions Nos.: 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 113,114 and 116.


Ian Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept that those motions go on division, although I believe some of them have been dealt with already on the Notice Paper by virtue of their having been dispensed with as a result of other votes. However, we are prepared to have them go on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 99.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 100.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 22 to 25 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"dissatisfied with the response given."
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 101.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 102.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 42
(a)	by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
'42. (1) Where the denial of a security clearance required by the Government of Canada is a factor in a decision made"
(b)	by striking out lines 42 to 45 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Where the denial of a security clearance required by the Government of Canada to be given in respect of an individual is a factor in a decision made to deny the".
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 104.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 105.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 106.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 108.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 109.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 14 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall be conducted in private, unless the Review Committee orders otherwise."
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 111.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 113.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 114.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 52 by striking out lines 14 to 27 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"52.(1) The Review Committee shall on completion of an investigation in relation to a complaint under section 41, provide the minister the director and the complainant with a report containing the findings of the investigation and any recommendations that the Committee considers appropriate."
Motion negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 116.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion negatived.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we had already dealt with Motions Nos. 104 and 105.


Erik Nielsen: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: That could be right, but for the purposes of the record we have made assurance doubly sure.
The next vote is on Motion No. 118. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:


That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 53 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 23 the following:
"(2) Each member of the Review Committee shall be free to submit a Minority Report pursuant to this section.
"(3) The Review Committee may establish mechanisms for the submission of Minority Reports pursuant to this section or section 54."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?
Security Intelligence Service
Bossy	Messrs. Fleming	MacGuiganBreau	Flis	MackaseyBurghardt	Foster	MacLarenCampbell (Miss)	Fox	MacLellan(South West Nova)	Frith	MalepartCampbell	Garant	Maltais(LaSalle)	Gauthier	MarceauCampbell	Gendron	Masse(Cardigan)	Gourde	MastersCollenette	(Levis)	McRaeComtois	Gray	OstiguyCorbin	Harquail	ParentCosgrove	Henderson	PennerCousineau	Herbert	PetersonCullen	Hervieux-Payette	PinardCyr	(Mrs.)	ReganDaudlin	Hopkins	ReidDawson	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)De Bane	Isabelle	Robinsonde Corneille	Joyal	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Demers	Kaplan	RompkeyDeniger	Kelly	RossiDion	Killens (Mrs.)	RoyDionne	Lajoie	Savard(Chicoutimi)	Landers	SchroderDubois	Lang	SmithDupras	Lapierre	TessierDuquet	LeBlanc	TousignantErola (Mrs.)	Leduc	TurnerEvans	Lefebvre	VeilletteFerguson	Lumley	WatsonFisher	MacBain	Weatherhead-96.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(.Division No. 115)
++YEAS
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
Messrs.
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap
Hnatyshyn Hovdebo Howie Keeper Kempling
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Halifax West)	Kilgour	(Burnaby)Crouse	King	SargeantDarling	Kristiansen	SchellenbergerDeans	Lawrence	Scottde Jong	Lewis	(Hamilton-WDick	Lewycky	ScottDo mm	MacDougall	(Victoria-HalEllis	Malone	SiddonElzinga	Manly	SkellyEpp	Mazankowski	StewartFennell	McCain	TaylorForrestall	McCuish	ThackerFraser	McDermid	TowersFretz	McDonald (Ms.)	VankoughnetFriesen	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WaddellFulton Gamble Greenaway	McLean Miller Mitges
NAYS Messrs.	Wenman-81.Appolloni (Mrs.)	Baker	Begin (Miss)Axworthy	Beauchamp-N iquet	BlaisBachand	(Mrs.)	Bockstael
During the taking of the Vote:


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to compliment the Table Officers on their ability to recognize Members, but I was not in my seat during the vote and, therefore, I should not be counted.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion defeated.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules clearly state that, in order to vote, a Member should rise in his place and be counted. I noticed in the last several votes that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) merely waved his hand and did not stand up. Therefore, I request that his vote not be counted.


Mr. Speaker:: It may well be that the Chair's vision gets a little less clear at this hour, but the Chair recognized motion at that point and it was counted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent that the recorded division on Motion No. 119 be applied to just a few motions, Nos. 119, 120, 121 and 122.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I can agree with the application on Motion Nos. 119 and 121, but I cannot agree to Motions Nos. 120 and 122.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 119. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended be deleting Clause 54.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Security Intelligence Service


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) suggest that the previous vote be counted for Motion No. 119. I heard the Member-


Mr. Speaker:: No. It is Motion No. 119, this vote, the result of this vote that was proposed.


Yvon Pinard: The previous vote applies to Motions Nos. 119 and 121.


Ian Deans: 1 am quite prepared to have the outcome of vote on Motion No. 118 count for Motions Nos. 119 and 121.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair stands corrected. At this hour we make a few mistakes. The vote on Motion No. 118 will, by unanimous consent, be applied to Motion No. 119. Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 119 defeated. I understand the same vote will apply to 121 by unanimous consent with the addition of the vote negatived Mr. McKnight and Mr. Elzinga.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, no, in favour. It is not negatived. It is affirmative.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears that there are Hon. Members wishing to be added. I believe that I am interpreting them correctly. Mr. McKnight, Mr. Elzinga, Mr. Wise and Mr. Young wish to be recorded as additional affirmative votes. As additional negative votes, Mr. Lachance, Mr. Gingras and Mrs. Cote wish to be added. Is that correct?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on Motion No. 119.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 54.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 116)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse
Darling
Deans
de Jong
Dick
Domm
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
Messrs.
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougail
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy N ickerson Nielsen Nowlan Nystrom Oberle Parker Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
LeBlanc
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Ostiguy
Parent
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-99.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 119 negatived.
The next vote is on Motion No. 121.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 55.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 117)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Cooper	DickAnguish	Corbett	DommBeatty	Cossitt (Mrs.)	EllisBenjamin	Crosby	ElzingaBlaikie	(Halifax West)	EppBosley	Crouse	FennellBradley	Darling	ForrestallClark	Deans	Fraser(Brandon-Souris)	de Jong	Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dion Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Messrs.
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Evans Ferguson Fisher Fleming FI is Foster Fox Frith Garant Gauthier Gendron Gingras Gourde (Levis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
LeBlanc
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Ostiguy
Parent
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-99.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 121 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 120. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 54
(a)	by striking out line 1 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor: "54. The Review Committee or any member thereof may, on"
(b)	by striking out line 5 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor: "performance of its duties and functions and where so requested by the Review Committee, the minister shall cause each such report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the First fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the day the minister receives it."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Security Intelligence Service


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 118)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Bachand
Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
++NAYS
Messrs.
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy N ickerson Nielsen Nowlan Nystrom Oberle Parker Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-83.
Deniger Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.) Evans Ferguson Fisher Fleming Flis


Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Foster	Kelly
Fox	Killens (Mrs.)
Frith	Lachance
Gauthier	Landers
Gendron	Lang
Gingras	Lapierre
Gourd	Lapointe
(Argenteuil-Papineau)	(Charlevoix)
Gourde	LeBlanc
(Levis)	Leduc
Gray	Lefebvre
Harquail	Lumley
Henderson	MacBain
Herbert	MacGuigan
Hervieux-Payette	Mackasey
(Mrs.)	MacLaren
Hopkins	MacLellan
Hudecki	Maltais
Isabelle	Marceau
Ittinuar	Masse
Johnston	Masters
Joyal	McRae
Kaplan	
Parent	Darling
Penner	Deans
Peterson	de Jong
Pinard	Dick
Regan	Do mm
Reid	Ellis
(Kenora-Rainy River)	Elzinga
Robinson	Epp
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	Fennell
Rompkey	Forrestall
Rossi	Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Messrs.	
Howie	Nystrom
Keeper	Oberle
Kempling	Parker
Kilgour	Reid
King	(St. Catharines)
Lawrence	Riis
Lewis	Robinson
Lewycky	(Burnaby)
MacDougall	Sargeant
Malone	Schellenberger
Manly	Scott
Mazankowski	(Hamilton-Wentworth)
McCain	Scott
McCuish	(Victoria-Haliburton)
McDermid	Siddon
McDonald (Ms.)	Skelly
(Broadview-G reen wood)	Stewart
McLean	Taylor
Miller	Thacker
Mitges	Towers
Munro	Vankoughnet
(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Waddell
Murphy	Wenman
Nickerson	Wise
Nielsen	Young-82.
Nowlan
 NAYS Messrs.	
Duquet	LeBlanc
Eroia (Mrs.)	Leduc
Ferguson	Lefebvre
Fisher	Lumley
Fleming	MacBain
Flis	MacGuigan
Foster	Mackasey
Fox	MacLaren
Frith	MacLellan
Garant	Maltais
Gauthier	Marceau
Gendron	Masse
Gingras	Masters
Gourd	McRae
(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Parent
Gourde	Penner
(Levis)	Peterson
Harquail	Pinard
Henderson	Regan
Herbert	Reid
Hopkins	(Kenora-Rainy River)
Hudecki	Robinson
Isabelle	(Etobicoke- La keshore)
Ittinuar	Rompkey
Johnston	Rossi
Joyal	Roy
Kaplan	Savard
Kelly	Schroder
Killens (Mrs.)	Simmons
Lachance	Smith
Landers	Tessier
Lang	Tousignant
Lapierre	Turner
Lapointe	Watson
(Charlevoix)	Weatherhead-96.
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss)
(South West Nova)
Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan)
Collenette Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The next vote will be on Motion No. 123 which is a motion in the name of the Progressive Conservative Party. I seek the unanimous consent of the House that the recorded division which is to be taken on Motion No. 123 will apply to Motion No. 130, which is also a motion in the name of the Conservative Party.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 123 is in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Tessier
Tousignant
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead-101.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 122. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 55
(a)	by striking out line 6 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor: "55.(1) The Review Committee shall consult"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 20 at page 24 the following:
"(2) The Review Committee shall have full authority to determine the contents of statements and reports referred to in subsection (1) of this section."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 119)
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
++YEAS
Messrs.
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Cooper
Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse


(Mr. Fraser), who is a distinguished Solicitor General spokesperson.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On his advice, we are prepared to vote on Motion No. 123, and the recorded division which is shown on that vote will also be shown as the recorded division on Motion No. 130, which also stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South who is our distinguished Solicitor General spokesperson.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, having had an opportunity to discuss this matter in detail with the distinguished critic from the New Democratic Party, we agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Does the House give its unanimous consent that the result of the vote on Motion No. 123 shall apply to Motion No. 130?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Therefore, the next vote is on Motion No. 123.
Mr. Fraser, seconded by Mr. Domm, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding immediately after line 20 at page 24 the following:
"56. The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons or of the House of Commons and Senate as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Security Intelligence Service
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson Halliday Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois
Messrs.
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupont Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Harquail Henderson Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skeliy
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-83.
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith T essier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead- 102.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 120)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Beatty	BlaikieAnguish	Benjamin	Bosley


John Allen Fraser: Motion No. 130.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 61 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 26 the following:
"(2) Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, exercising primary responsibility pursuant to subsection (1), shall consult with municipal and provincial police forces when exercising such jurisdiction."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


Security Intelligence Service (Division No. 121)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Dupont Dupras
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
++NAYS
Messrs.
Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Harquail
Henderson
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
LeBlanc
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-83.
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tessier Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson
Weatherhead-102.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion 124.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House that the recorded division to be taken on Motion No. 124 be applied to the following Motions: Motions Nos. 129, 138, 139 and 140.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House Leader would accept adding to the list which he gave us Motions Nos. 151, 152, 155, 159, 166 and 167?


Yvon Pinard: Of course, Mr. Speaker, with pleasure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Does the House give its unanimous consent that the vote on Motion No. 124 will also apply to Motions Nos. 129, 138, 139, 140, 151, 152, 155, 159, 166 and 167?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: This vote also disposes of Motions Nos. 125 to 128 inclusive; Motions Nos. 131 to 137 inclusive; Motions Nos. 142 to 150 inclusive; Motions Nos. 156, 157, 158; Motions Nos. 161 to 165 inclusive; and Motions Nos. 168 to 174 inclusive.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moves:
Motion No. 124.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 56.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 122)
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway
++YEAS
Messrs.
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-G reen wood) McKnight McLean Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Bachand
Axworthy	Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)


Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
Demers
Deniger
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Mr. Svend J.
Motion No. 129.
Flis	MacBain	Messrs.	Foster	MacGuigan	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Evans	LefebvreFox	Mackasey	Axworthy	Ferguson	LumleyFrith	MacLaren	Bachand	Fisher	MacBainGarant	MacLellan	Baker	Fleming	MacGuiganGauthier	Malepart	Beauchamp-Niquet	Flis	MackaseyGendron	Maltais	(Mrs.)	Foster	MacLarenGingras	Marceau	Begin (Miss)	Fox	MacLellanGourde	Masse	Blais	Frith	Malepart(Levis)	Masters	Bockstael	Garant	MaltaisGray	McCauley	Bossy	Gauthier	MarceauHarquail	McRae	Breau	Gendron	MasseHenderson	Parent	Burghardt	Gingras	MastersHervieux-Payette	Pelletier	Campbell (Miss)	Gourde	McCauley(Mrs.)	Penner	(South West Nova)	(Levis)	McRaeHopkins	Peterson	Campbell	Gray	ParentHudecki	Pinard	(LaSalle)	Harquail	PelletierIsabelle	Portelance	Campbell	Henderson	PennerIttinuar	Reid	(Cardigan)	Hervieux-Payette	PetersonJohnston	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Collenette	(Mrs.)	PinardJoyal	Robinson	Comtois	Hopkins	PortelanceKaplan	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	Corbin	Hudecki	ReidKelly	Rompkey	Cosgrove	Isabelle	(Kenora-Rainy River)Killens (Mrs.)	Rossi	Cote (Mrs.)	Ittinuar	RobinsonLachance	Roy	Cousineau	Johnston	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Lajoie	Savard	Cullen	Joyal	RompkeyLanders	Schroder	Cyr	Kaplan	RossiLang	Simmons	Daudlin	Kelly	RoyLapierre	Smith	Dawson	Killens (Mrs.)	SavardLapointe	Tessier	Demers	Lachance	Schroder(Charlevoix)	Tousignant	Deniger	Lajoie	SimmonsLeBlanc	Turner	Dion	Landers	SmithLeduc	Veillette	Dionne	Lang	TessierLefebvre	Watson	(Chicoutimi)	Lapierre	TousignantLumley	Weatherhead- 102.	Dubois	Lapointe	TurnerDuclos	(Charlevoix)	VeilletteDupras	LeBlanc	WatsonRobinson (Burnaby)	moves:	Duquet Erola (Mrs.)	Leduc	Weatherhead- 102.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 61.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 123)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broad view-Greenwood) McKnight McLean Miller Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moves:
Motion No. 138.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 124)
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
++YEAS
Messrs.
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.
4976


Security Intelligence Service
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Evans	LefebvreAxworthy	Ferguson	LumleyBachand	Fisher	MacBainBaker	Fleming	MacGuiganBeauchamp-Niquet	Flis	Mackasey(Mrs.)	Foster	MacLarenBegin (Miss)	Fox	MacLellanBlais	Frith	MalepartBockstael	Garant	MaltaisBossy	Gauthier	MarceauBreau	Gendron	MasseBurghardt	Gingras	MastersCampbell (Miss)	Gourde	McCauley(South West Nova)	(Levis)	McRaeCampbell	Gray	Parent(LaSalle)	Harquail	PelletierCampbell	Henderson	Penner(Cardigan)	Hervieux-Payette	PetersonCollenette	(Mrs.)	PinardComtois	Hopkins	PortelanceCorbin	Hudecki	ReidCosgrove	Isabelle	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cote (Mrs.)	Ittinuar	RobinsonCousineau	Johnston	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Cullen	Joyal	RompkeyCyr	Kaplan	RossiDaudlin	Kelly	RoyDawson	Killens (Mrs.)	SavardDemers	Lachance	SchroderDeniger	Lajoie	SimmonsDion	Landers	SmithDionne	Lang	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	Lapierre	TousignantDubois	Lapointe	TurnerDuclos	(Charlevoix)	VeilletteDupras	LeBlanc	WatsonDuquet	Leduc	Weatherhead- 102.
Erola (Mrs.)
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moves:
Motion No. 139.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 69 by striking out lines 11 to 17 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"69. (1) Three years after the coming into force of this Act a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as shall be established by Parliament for that purpose."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 125)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Elzinga	KeeperAnguish	Epp	KemplingBeatty	Fennell	KilgourBenjamin	Forrestall	KingBlaikie	Fraser	KristiansenBosley	Fretz	LawrenceBradley	Friesen	LewisClark	Fulton	Lewycky(Brandon-Souris)	Gamble	MacDougallCooper	Greenaway	MaloneCorbett	Gustafson	ManlyCossitt (Mrs.)	Halliday	MazankowskiCrosby	Hamilton	McCain(Halifax West)	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McCuishCrouse	Mountain)	McDermidDarling	Hargrave	McDonald (Ms.)Deans	Hawkes	(Broadview-Greenwood)de Jong	Heap	McKnightDick	Hnatyshyn	McLeanDomm	Hovdebo	MillerEllis	Howie	Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
Demers
Deniger
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Messrs.
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Landers Lang Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) LeBlanc Leduc
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tessier Tousignant Turner Vcillette Watson
Weatherhead- 102.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moves:
Motion No. 140.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 126)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse
Darling
Deans
de Jong
Dick
Domm
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour


Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.	Messrs.
King	Mitges	Schellenberger	Hargrave	McDermid	RobinsonKristiansen	Munro	Scott	Hawkes	McDonald (Ms.)	(Burnaby)Lawrence	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Heap	(Broadview-Greenwood)	SargeantLewis	Murphy	Scott	Hnatyshyn	McKnight	SchellenbergerLewycky	Nickerson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Hovdebo	McLean	ScottMacDougall	Nielsen	Siddon	Howie	Miller	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Malone	Nowlan	Skelly	Keeper	Mitges	ScottManly	Nystrom	Stewart	Kempling	Munro	(Victoria-Haliburton)Mazankowski	Oberle	Taylor	Kilgour	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	SiddonMcCain	Parker	Thacker	King	Murphy	SkellyMcCuish	Reid	Towers	Kristiansen	N ickerson	StewartMcDermid	(St. Catharines)	Vankoughnet	Lawrence	Nielsen	TaylorMcDonald (Ms.)	Riis	Waddell	Lewis	Nowlan	Thacker(Broadview-Greenwood)	Robinson	Wenman	Lewycky	Nystrom	TowersMcKnight	(Burnaby)	Wise	MacDougall	Oberle	VankoughnetMcLean	Sargeant	Young-84.	Malone	Parker	WaddellMiller	NAYS Messrs.	Manly Mazankowski McCain McCuish	Reid (St. Catharines) Riis	Wenman Wise Young-84.Appolloni (Mrs.)	Evans	LefebvreAxworthy	Ferguson	LumleyBachand	Fisher	MacBainBaker	Fleming	MacGuiganBeauchamp-Niquet	Flis	Mackasey(Mrs.)	Foster	MacLarenBegin (Miss)	Fox	MacLellanBlais	Frith	MalepartBockstael	Garant	MaltaisBossy	Gauthier	MarceauBreau	Gendron	MasseBurghardt	Gingras	MastersCampbell (Miss)	Gourde	McCauley(South West Nova)	(Levis)	McRaeCampbell	Gray	Parent(LaSalle)	Harquail	PelletierCampbell	Henderson	Penner(Cardigan)	Hervieux-Payette	PetersonCollenette	(Mrs.)	PinardComtois	Hopkins	PorlelanceCorbin	Hudecki	ReidCosgrove	Isabelle	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cote (Mrs.)	Ittinuar	RobinsonCousineau	Johnston	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Cullen	Joyal	RompkeyCyr	Kaplan	RossiDaudlin	Kelly	RoyDawson	Kiilens (Mrs.)	SavardDemers	Lachance	SchroderDeniger	Lajoie	SimmonsDion	Landers	SmithDionne	Lang	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	Lapierre	TousignantDubois	Lapointe	TurnerDuclos	(Charlevoix)	VeilletteDupras	LeBlanc	WatsonDuquet Erola (Mrs.)	Leduc	Weatherhead- 102.Mr. Svend J. Motion No. 151.	Robinson (Burnaby)	moves:That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 80.	
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived the following division: (Division No. 127)
 YEAS Messrs.		
Althouse	Crosby	ForrestallAnguish	(Halifax West)	FraserBeatty	Crouse	FretzBenjamin	Darling	FriesenBlaikie	Deans	FultonBosley	de Jong	GambleBradley	Dick	GreenawayClark	Domm	Gustafson(Brandon-Souris)	Ellis	HallidayCooper	Elzinga	HamiltonCorbett	Epp	(Qu'Appelle-MooseCossitt (Mrs.)	Fennell	Mountain)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Evans	LefebvreAxworthy	Ferguson	LumleyBachand	Fisher	MacBainBaker	Fleming	MacGuiganBeauchamp-N iquet	Flis	Mackasey(Mrs.)	Foster	MacLarenBegin (Miss)	Fox	MacLellanBlais	Frith	MalepartBockstael	Garant	MaltaisBossy	Gauthier	MarceauBreau	Gendron	MasseBurghardt	Gingras	MastersCampbell (Miss)	Gourde	McCauley(South West Nova)	(Levis)	McRaeCampbell	Gray	Parent(LaSalle)	Harquail	PelletierCampbell	Henderson	Penner(Cardigan)	Hervieux-Payette	PetersonCollenette	(Mrs.)	PinardComtois	Hopkins	PortelanceCorbin	Hudecki	ReidCosgrove	Isabelle	(Kenora-ICote (Mrs.)	Ittinuar	RobinsonCousineau	Johnston	(EtobicokCullen	Joyal	RompkeyCyr	Kaplan	RossiDaudlin	Kelly	RoyDawson	Kiilens (Mrs.)	SavardDemers	Lachance	SchroderDeniger	Lajoie	SimmonsDion	Landers	SmithDionne	Lang	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	Lapierre	TousignantDubois	Lapointe	TurnerDuclos	(Charlevoix)	VeilletteDupras	LeBlanc	WatsonDuquet	Leduc	Weatherhea
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moves:
Motion No. 152.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out lines 15 to 18 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"person other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident is a person described in paragraph 19(12)(d), (e), (0, or (g) or in paragraph 27(2)(c), or that a person who is a permanent resident is a person described in subparagraph 19(1 )(d)(ii), or paragraph 19(1 )(e) or (g) or 27(1 )(c), they may make a report to the".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


Security Intelligence Service (Division No. 128)
Althouse	YEAS Messrs. Halliday	MunroAnguish	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Beatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MurphyBenjamin	Mountain)	NickersonBlaikie	Hargrave	NielsenBosley	Hawkes	NowlanBradley	Heap	NystromClark	Hnatyshyn	Oberle(Brandon-Souris)	Hovdebo	ParkerCooper	Howie	ReidCorbett	Keeper	(St. Catharines)Cossitt (Mrs.)	Kempling	RiisCrosby	Kilgour	Robinson(Halifax West)	King	(Burnaby)Crouse	Kristiansen	SargeantDarling	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDeans	Lewis	Scottde Jong	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dick	MacDougall	ScottDomm	Malone	(Victoria-Haliburton)Ellis	Manly	SiddonElzinga	Mazankowski	SkellyEpp	McCain	StewartFennell	McCuish	TaylorForrestall	McDermid	ThackerFraser	McDonald (Ms.)	TowersFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood)	VankoughnetFriesen	McKnight	WaddellFulton	McLean	WenmanGamble	Miller	WiseGreenaway	Mitges	Young-84.Gustafson Appolloni (Mrs.)	NAYS Messrs. Evans	LefebvreAxworthy	Ferguson	LumleyBachand	Fisher	MacBainBaker	Fleming	MacGuiganBeauchamp-N iquet	Flis	Mackasey(Mrs.)	Foster	MacLarenBegin (Miss)	Fox	MacLellanBlais	Frith	MalepartBockstael	Garant	MaltaisBossy	Gauthier	MarceauBreau	Gendron	MasseBurghardt	Gingras	MastersCampbell (Miss)	Gourde	McCauley(South West Nova)	(Levis)	McRaeCampbell	Gray	Parent(LaSalle)	Harquail	PelletierCampbell	Henderson	Penner(Cardigan)	Hervieux-Payette	PetersonCollenette	(Mrs.) '	PinardComtois	Hopkins	PortelanceCorbin	Hudecki	ReidCosgrove	Isabelle	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cote (Mrs.)	Ittinuar	RobinsonCousineau	Johnston	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Cullen	Joyal	RompkeyCyr	Kaplan	RossiDaudlin	Kelly	RoyDawson	Killens (Mrs.)	SavardDemers	Lachance	SchroderDeniger	Lajoie	SimmonsDion	Landers	SmithDionne	Lang	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	Lapierre	TousignantDubois	Lapointe	TurnerDuclos	(Charlevoix)	VeilletteDupras	LeBlanc	WatsonDuquet	Leduc	Weatherhead-102.
Eroia (Mrs.)
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moves:
Motion No. 155.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 80 by striking out lines 40 to 48 at page 37 and lines 1 and 2 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"for that purpose shall hold a hearing of which sections 29 to 31 shall apply as if the hearing were being carried on before an adjudicator."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 129)
Althouse	YEAS Messrs. Hamilton	MurphyAnguish	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NickersonBeatty	Mountain)	NielsenBenjamin	Hargrave	NowlanBlaikie	Hawkes	NystromBosley	Heap	OberleBradley	Hnatyshyn	ParkerClark	Hovdebo	Reid(Brandon-Souris)	Howie	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Keeper	RiisCorbett	Kempling	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	Kilgour	(Burnaby)Crosby	King	Sargeant(Halifax West)	Kristiansen	SchellenbergerCrouse	Lawrence	ScottDarling	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Deans	Lewycky	Scottde Jong	MacDougall	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dick	Malone	SiddonDomm	Manly	SkellyEllis	Mazankowski	StewartElzinga	McCain	TaylorEpp	McCuish	ThackerFennell	McDermid	TowersForrestall	McDonald (Ms.)	VankoughnetFraser	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WaddellFretz	McKnight	WenmanFriesen	McLean	WiseFulton	Miller	Young-84.Gamble	Mitges	Greenaway	Munro	Gustafson	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Halliday Appolloni (Mrs.)	NAYS Messrs. Evans	LumleyAxworthy	Ferguson	MacBainBachand	Fisher	MacGuiganBaker	Fleming	MackaseyBeauchamp-N iquet	Flis	MacLaren(Mrs.)	Foster	MacLellanBegin (Miss)	Fox	MalepartBlais	Frith	MaltaisBockstael	Garant	MarceauBossy	Gauthier	MasseBreau	Gendron	MastersBurghardt	Gingras	McCauleyCampbell (Miss)	Gourde	McRae(South West Nova)	(Levis)	ParentCampbell	Gray	Pelletier(LaSalle)	Harquail	PennerCampbell	Henderson	Peterson(Cardigan)	Hervieux-Payette	PinardCollenette	(Mrs.)	PortelanceComtois	Hopkins	ReidCorbin	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cosgrove	Isabelle	RobinsonCote (Mrs.)	Ittinuar	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Cousineau	Johnston	RompkeyCullen	Joyal	RossiCyr	Kaplan	RoyDaudlin	Kelly	SavardDawson	Killens (Mrs.)	SchroderDemers	Lachance	SimmonsDeniger	Lajoie	SmithDion	Landers	TessierDionne	Lang	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	Lapierre	TurnerDubois	Lapointe	VeilletteDuclos	(Charlevoix)	WatsonDupras	LeBlanc	Weatherhead- 102.Duquet	Leduc	Eroia (Mrs.)	Lefebvre	
Security Intelligence Service
Mr. Svend J.	Robinson (Burnaby)	moves:	Messrs.	Motion No. 159.	Savard	Tessier	VeilletteThat Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 84.	Schroder	Tousignant	WatsonSimmons	Turner	Weatherhead-102.The House divided on the motion	, which was negatived on	Smith	the following division:	Mr. Svend J.	Robinson (Burnaby) moves:	(Division No. 130)	Motion No. 166.	That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 90.	YEAS	The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on	Messrs.	the following division:	Althouse	Halliday	Munro	Anguish	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	(Division No. 131)	Beatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Murphy	Benjamin	Mountain)	Nickerson	Blaikie	Hargrave	Nielsen	YEAS	Bosley	Hawkes	Nowlan	Bradley	Heap	Nystrom	Messrs.	Clark	Hnatyshyn	Oberle	Althouse	Halliday	Munro(Brandon-Souris)	Hovdebo	Parker	Anguish	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Cooper	Howie	Reid	Beatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MurphyCorbett	Keeper	(St. Catharines)	Benjamin	Mountain)	NickersonCossitt (Mrs.)	Kempling	Riis	Blaikie	Hargrave	NielsenCrosby	Kilgour	Robinson	Bosley	Hawkes	Nowlan(Halifax West)	King	(Burnaby)	Bradley	Heap	NystromCrouse	Kristiansen	Sargeant	Clark	Hnatyshyn	OberleDarling	Lawrence	Schellenberger	(Brandon-Souris)	Hovdebo	ParkerDeans	Lewis	Scott	Cooper	Howie	Reidde Jong	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Corbett	Keeper	(St. Catharines)Dick	MacDougall	Scott	Cossitt (Mrs.)	Kempling	RiisDo mm	Malone	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Crosby	Kilgour	RobinsonEllis	Manly	Siddon	(Halifax West)	King	(Burnaby)Elzinga	Mazankowski	Skelly	Crouse	Kristiansen	SargeantEpp	McCain	Stewart	Darling	Lawrence	SchellenbergerFennell	McCuish	Taylor	Deans	Lewis	ScottForrestall	McDermid	Thacker	de Jong	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Fraser	McDonald (Ms.)	Towers	Dick	MacDougall	ScottFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood) Vankoughnet	Domm	Malone	(Victoria-Haliburton)Friesen	McKnight	Waddell	Ellis	Manly	SiddonFulton	McLean	Wenman	Elzinga	Mazankowski	SkellyGamble	Miller	Wise	Epp	McCain	StewartGreenaway	Mitges	Young-84.	Fennell	McCuish	TaylorGustafson	Forrestall	McDermid	ThackerNAYS	Fraser	McDonald (Ms.)	TowersFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood)	VankoughnetMessrs.	Friesen	McKnight	WaddellFulton	McLean	WenmanAppolloni (Mrs.)	Duclos	Landers	Gamble	Miller	WiseAxworthy	Dupras	Lang	Greenaway	Mitges	Young-84.Bachand	Duquet	Lapierre	Gustafson	Baker	Erola (Mrs.)	Lapointe	Beauchamp-Niquet	Evans	(Charlevoix)	NAYS	(Mrs.)	Ferguson	LeBlanc	Begin (Miss)	Fisher	Leduc	Messrs.	Blais	Fleming	Lefebvre	Bockstael	Flis	Lumley	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Daudlin	GrayBossy	Foster	MacBain	Axworthy	Dawson	HarquailBreau	Fox	MacGuigan	Bachand	Demers	HendersonBurghardt	Frith	Mackasey	Baker	Deniger	Hervieux-PayetteCampbell (Miss)	Garant	MacLaren	Beauchamp-N iquet	Dion	(Mrs.)(South West Nova)	Gauthier	MacLellan	(Mrs.)	Dionne	HopkinsCampbell	Gendron	Malepart	Begin (Miss)	(Chicoutimi)	Hudecki(LaSalle)	Gingras	Maltais	Blais	Dubois	IsabelleCampbell	Gourde	Marceau	Bockstael	Duclos	Ittinuar(Cardigan)	(Levis)	Masse	Bossy	Dupras	JohnstonCollenette	Gray	Masters	Breau	Duquet	JoyalComtois	Harquail	McCauley	Burghardt	Erola (Mrs.)	KaplanCorbin	Henderson	McRae	Campbell (Miss)	Evans	KellyCosgrove	Hervieux-Payette	Parent	(South West Nova)	Ferguson	Killens (Mrs.)Cote (Mrs.)	(Mrs.)	Pelletier	Campbell	Fisher	LachanceCousineau	Hopkins	Penner	(LaSalle)	Fleming	LajoieCullen	Hudecki	Peterson	Campbell	Flis	LandersCyr	Isabelle	Pinard	(Cardigan)	Foster	LangDaudlin	Ittinuar	Portelance	Collenette	Fox	LapierreDawson	Johnston	Reid	Comtois	Frith	LapointeDemers	Joyal	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Corbin	Garant	(Charlevoix)Deniger	Kaplan	Robinson	Cosgrove	Gauthier	LeBlancDion	Kelly	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	Cote (Mrs.)	Gendron	LeducDionne	Killens (Mrs.)	Rompkey	Cousineau	Gingras	Lefebvre(Chicoutimi)	Lachance	Rossi	Cullen	Gourde	LumleyDubois	Lajoie	Roy	Cyr	(Levis)	MacBain
Security Intelligence Service
Messrs.	Messrs.
MacGuigan	Pelletier	RoyMackasey	Penner	SavardMacLaren	Peterson	SchroderMacLeilan	Pinard	SimmonsMalepart	Portelance	SmithMaltais	Reid	TessierMarceau	(Kenora-Rainy River)	TousignantMasse	Robinson	TurnerMasters	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	VeilletteMcCauley	Rompkey	WatsonMcRae	Rossi	Weatherhead-Parent	
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moves:
Motion No. 167.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 90 by striking out lines 12 and 13 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iii) activities that could reasonably be expected to constitute threats to the security of Canada".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Flis	Lachance	ParentFoster	Lajoie	PelletierFox	Landers	PennerFrith	Lang	PetersonGarant	Lapierre	PinardGauthier	Lapointe	PortelanceGendron	(Charlevoix)	ReidGingras	LeBlanc	(Kenora-R;Gourde	Leduc	Robinson(Levis)	Lefebvrc	(Etobicoke-Gray	Lumley	RompkeyHarquail	MacBain	RossiHenderson	MacGuigan	RoyHervieux-Payette	Mackasey	Savard(Mrs.)	MacLaren	SchroderHopkins	MacLeilan	SimmonsHudecki	Malepart	SmithIsabelle	Maltais	TessierIttinuar	Marceau	TousignantJohnston	Masse	TurnerJoyal	Masters	VeilletteKaplan	McCauley	WatsonKelly	McRae	Weatherhead-Killens (Mrs.)	
(Division No. 132)
Alt house
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gustafson
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moosc
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitges
++NAYS
Messrs.
Campbell (LaSalle) Campbell (Cardigan) Collenette Comtois Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-84.
Demers Deniger Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupras Duquet Eroia (Mrs.) Evans Ferguson Fisher Fleming


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to check. I did not hear my name called although I know I voted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I declare the motion lost. The same result will apply to the motions as previously enumerated. This vote therefore disposes of Motions Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174.
The next question is on Motion No. 141. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
Motion No. 141.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iii) activities that could reasonably be expected to constitute threats to the security of Canada".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 133)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Forrestall	LewisAnguish	Fraser	LewyckyBeatty	Fretz	MacDougallBenjamin	Friesen	MaloneBlaikie	Fulton	ManlyBosley	Gamble	MazankowskiBradley	Greenaway	McCainClark	Gustafson	McCuish(Brandon-Souris)	Halliday	McDermidCooper	Hamilton	McDonald (Ms.)Corbett	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	(Broadview-Greenwood)Cossitt (Mrs.)	Mountain)	McKnightCrosby	Hargrave	McLean(Halifax West)	Hawkes	MillerCrouse	Heap	MitgesDarling	Hnatyshyn	MunroDeans	Hovdebo	(Esquimalt-Saanich)de Jong	Howie	MurphyDick	Keeper	NickersonDomm	Kempling	NystromEllis	Kilgour	OberleElzinga	King	ParkerEpp	Kristiansen	ReidFennell	Lawrence	(St. Catharines)
Messrs.
Riis	Scott	TowersRobinson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Vankoughnet(Burnaby)	Siddon	WaddellSargeant	Skelly	WenmanScott	Stewart	Wise(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Taylor Thacker
NAYS Messrs.	Young-81.Appolloni (Mrs.)	Erola (Mrs.)	LefebvreAxworthy	Evans	LumleyBachand	Ferguson	MacBainBaker	Fisher	MacGuiganBeauchamp-N iquet	Fleming	Mackasey(Mrs.)	Flis	MacLarenBegin (Miss)	Foster	MacLellanBlais	Fox	MalepartBockstael	Frith	MaltaisBossy	Garant	MarceauBreau	Gauthier	MastersBurghardt	Gendron	McCauleyCampbell (Miss)	Gingras	McRae(South West Nova)	Gourd	ParentCampbell	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Pelletier(LaSalle)	Gourde	PennerCampbell	(Levis)	Peterson(Cardigan)	Gray	PinardCollenette	Harquail	PortelanceComtois	Henderson	ReganCorbin	Hervieux- Payette	ReidCosgrove	(Mrs.) '	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cote (Mrs.)	Hopkins	RobinsonCousineau	Hudecki	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Cullen	Isabelle	RompkeyCyr	Ittinuar	RoyDaudlin	Johnston	SavardDawson	Joyal	Schroderde Corneille	Kaplan	SimmonsDemers	Killens (Mrs.)	SmithDeniger	Lachance	TessierDion	Lajoie	TousignantDionne	Landers	Turner(Chicoutimi)	Lang	VeilletteDubois	Lapierre	WatsonDuclos	Lapointe	Weatherhead-103.Dupont	(Charlevoix)	Dupras	LeBlanc	Duquet	Leduc


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I declare the motion lost.
Security Intelligence Service
(b)	paragraph 50(a) of that Act does not apply with respect to the person concerning whom the report is made."
(d) by striking out lines 15 to 17 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
''was made is
(a)	in the case of a permanent resident, a person described in subparagraph 19(1 )(d)(ii) or paragraph 19(l)(e) or (g) or 27(1 )(c), or
(b)	in any other case, a person described in any of paragraphs 19(l)(d) to (g) or 27(2)(c),
the Governor in Coun-".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I declare the motion carried on division.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the motion we have just voted on is a motion in the name of the Government. There is another one, Motion No. 160. I think there would be unanimous consent to carry Motion No. 160.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Does the House give unanimous consent to carry Motion No. 160?
The next question is on Motion 153. Mr. Kaplan, seconded by Mr. MacLellan, moves:
Motion No. 153.
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 80
(a)	by striking out lines 15 to 18 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"person, other than a Canadian citizen, is
(a) in the case of a permanent resident, a person described in subparagraph 19(l)(d)(ii) or paragraph 19(l)(e) or (g) or 27(1 )(c), or
(b)	in any other case, a person described in any of paragraphs 19(l)(d) to (g) or 27(2)(c),
they may make a report to the"
(b)	by striking out lines 33 to 35 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"person named in the document is,
(a)	in the case of a permanent resident, a person described in subparagraph 19(1 )(d)(ii) or paragraph 19(1 )(e) or (g) or 27(l)(c); or
(b)	in any other case, a person described in any of paragraphs 19(l)(d) to (g) or 27(2)(c)."
(c)	by striking out lines 1 and 2 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"section 42 of that Act, except that
(a) a reference in any of those provisions to "deputy head" shall be read as a reference to the Minister and the Solicitor General; and


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question then is on Motion No. 160. Mr. Kaplan, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 84
(a)	by striking out lines 1 to 3 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"is a person described,
(c)	in the case of a permanent resident, in subparagraph 19(1 )(d)(ii) or pararaph 19(1 )(e) or (g) or 27(1 )(c), or
(d)	in any other case, in any of paragraphs 19(1 )(d) to (g) or 27(2)(c), they may make a report to the"
(b)	by striking out lines 21 to 24 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"section 42 of that Act, except that
(a)	a reference in any of those provisions, to "deputy head" shall be read as a reference to the Minister and the Solicitor General; and
(b)	paragraph 50(a) of that Act does not apply with respect to the person concerning whom the report is made."
(c)	by striking out lines 21 to 23 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"in paragraph 82.1 (2)(b) is a person described
(a) in the case of a permanent resident, in subparagraph 19(1 )(d)(ii) or paragraph 19(l)(e) or (g) or 27(1 )(c), or


Security Intelligence Service
(b) in any other case, in any of paragraphs 19(1 )(d) to (g) or 27(2)(c), the".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I declare the motion carried.
The next vote is one Motino No. 154. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 80 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 37 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the Minister shall not cause to be filed a certificate pursuant to that subsection in respect of paragraphs 19(l)(e) or (0, or paragraphs 27(1 )(c) or (2)(c) where the person believed to engage in subversion has neither used, nor advocated the use of violence.-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
	(.Division No. 134)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althouse	Fraser	MaloneAnguish	Fretz	ManlyBeatty	Friesen	MazankowskiBenjamin	Fulton	McCainBlaikie	Gamble	McCuishBosley	Greenaway	McDermidBradley	Gustafson	McDonald (Ms.)Clark	Halliday	(Broadview-Gn(Brandon-Souris)	Hamilton	McKnightCooper	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McLeanCorbett	Mountain)	MillerCossitt (Mrs.)	Hargrave	MitgesCrosby	Hawkes	Munro(Halifax West)	Heap	(Esquimalt-SaaCrouse	Hnatyshyn	MurphyDarling	Hovdebo	NickersonDeans	Howie	Nowlande Jong	Keeper	NystromDick	Kempling	OberleDomm	Kilgour	ParkerEllis	King	ReidElzinga	Kristiansen	(St. CatharinesEpp	Lawrence	RiisFennell	Lewis	RobinsonForrestall	MacDougall	(Burnaby) Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Blais Bockstael Bossy Breau Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Collenette
Comtois
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Messrs.
Dupont Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
FI is
Foster
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray Harquail
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wise
Young-80.
Leduc Lumley MacBain MacGuigan Mackasey MacLaren MacLellan Maltais Marceau Masse Masters McCauley McRae Ostiguy Parent Penner Peterson Pinard Regan Reid
Corbin	Henderson	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cosgrove	Hervieux-Payette	RobinsonCote (Mrs.)	(Mrs.)	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Cousineau	Hopkins	RompkeyCullen	Hudecki	RossiCyr	Isabelle	RoyDawson	Ittinuar	Savardde Corneille	Johnston	SchroderDemers	Joy a I	SimmonsDeniger	Kaplan	SmithDion	Killens (Mrs.)	TessierDionne	Lachance	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	Landers	TurnerDubois	Lang	VeilletteDuclos	Lapierre	WatsonLeBlanc	Weatherhead-97.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: defeated.		I declare the motion


Robert Phillip Kaplan: that		
the Bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 135)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Erola (Mrs.)	LeBlancAxworthy	Evans	LeducBachand	Ferguson	LefebvreBeauchamp-Niquet '	Fisher	Lumley(Mrs.)	Fleming	MacBainBegin (Miss)	Flis	MacGuiganBlais	Foster	MackaseyBockstael	Fox	MacLarenBossy	Garant	MacLellanBreau	Gauthier	MaltaisBurghardt	Gendron	MarceauCampbell (Miss)	Gingras	Masse(South West Nova)	Gourd	MastersCampbell	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	McCauley(LaSalle)	Gourde	McRaeCampbell	(Levis)	Ostiguy(Cardigan)	Gray	ParentCollenette	Harquail	PelletierComtois	Henderson	PennerCorbin	Herbert	PetersonCosgrove	Hervieux-Payette	PinardCote (Mrs.)	(Mrs.)	ReganCousineau	Hopkins	ReidCullen	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cyr	Isabelle	RobinsonDaudlin	Ittinuar	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Dawson	Johnston	Rompkeyde Corneille	Joyal	RossiDemers	Kaplan	SavardDeniger	Killens (Mrs.)	SchroderDion	Lachance	SimmonsDionne	Lajoie	Smith(Chicoutimi)	Landers	TessierDubois	Lang	TousignantDuclos	Lapierre	TurnerDupont	Lapointe	VeilletteDuquet	(Charlevoix)	Watson
W ea t herhead-101.
Security Intelligence Service
++NAYS
Messrs.
Althouse Anguish Beatty Benjamin Blaikie Bosley Bradley Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crosby
(Halifax West)
Crouse Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. When shall the Bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 5.05 a.m., this House stands adjourned until later today, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.05 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mazankowski McCain McCuish McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broad view-Green wood) McKnight McLean Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Parker
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Young-83.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 21, 1984