1984-06-18

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 14, 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 thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)).
Mr. Speaker:: Before hearing procedural arguments regarding Motions No. 89, 93 and 94,1 should indicate to the House that, although the Chair gave its reasons for ruling Motion No. 91 out of order last Thursday, through a technical error this motion was not included in the list of motions which were ruled irreceivable. As a result, it was quite properly left on the Order Paper with the other report stage motions. In spite of this technical error, Motion No. 91 is irreceivable and I so rule.
I am now prepared to hear procedural arguments with respect to the admissibility of Motions No. 89, 93, and 94.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, with deference to you and the other Hon. Members of the House, I wonder if we could postpone those arguments. I appreciate the fact that you called for argument with respect to this matter; however, we are not in a position to argue this matter at this point in time. Having returned to Ottawa late last night after vacating the premises for the last few days, I am not in a position to argue at the present time. With the agreement of Hon. Members of the House, I would appreciate very much if we could postpone this to a time convenient to Your Honour.
[DOT]	(1110)
[ Translation]


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised to hear this request. Last week the Chair clearly indicated that it intended to hear arguments on the subject. My hon. friend and his colleagues have had the whole weekend to prepare their arguments, and they know this Bill is urgent. They know the House will soon be adjourning for the summer. The only valid excuse I can think of is that my hon. friend was so absorbed in and by the learned speeches of all the Liberal leadership candidates on the weekend and was so keen on hearing what our new leader, Mr. John Turner, had to say, that it kept him from concentrating on the business of the House. I still do not think his request is very reasonable. However, out of courtesy to the Hon. Member, and I still say I am surprised at this request, we certainly have no objection to his taking forty or fifty minutes to prepare and submit his arguments, which he should be able to do before noon. Not any later, however. I think it would be unreasonable to prevent Parliament from hearing considerations on the admissibility of these amendments, for which notice was given more than a week ago, especially since the Chair indicated last week that it wanted Hon. Members to prepare their arguments for submission to the Chair. I think it would be unreasonable to delay unduly the presentation of these arguments. It is of course up to you, Mr. Speaker, to decide how much time you wish to allow. However, we on this side of the House are surprised that a request should be made at this time, and we do not think any more than three-quarters of an hour or an hour, at most, should be allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is agreeable to the House, I will hear argument at Orders of the Day this afternoon.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, certainly that is agreeable. We, as well as members of the Official Opposition, observed with joy and pleasure the outcome of the Liberal leadership convention. Certainly we are prepared to defer argument even though we were prepared to proceed at this time.


Yvon Pinard: The Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party has just indicated those Hon. Members are prepared to argue now. If they do argue now, then at three o'clock the Chair will require less time to hear the arguments of the Tory Party.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) wishes to be heard now, the Chair would be prepared to hear him and to hear the representatives of the Official Opposition later this day. Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby prepared to argue the point of order at this point?


Mr. Kaplan:: He just said he was.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of a reply debate will take place on Clause 1. We are resuming debate on Motion No. 1

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
of the Hon. Member for Burnaby, seconded by the hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), that Clause 1 be deleted. Are Hon. Members seeking to be recognized?


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say at this stage on Bill C-9, which is a very important Bill. It is a Bill which has received considerable comment, I suppose, right around all of our constituencies, but perhaps more so in Saskatchewan than in some others, because Saskatchewan is known as the home of the RCMP, with the training school located, in the city of Regina. A lot of folk have been inquiring what this new security service would mean to the future of the RCMP and what it would mean to the people of the province. They ask why we need this new security service, this new security agency, with its powers, and so on. We have had an awful lot of questions and comments about why we need it, and so on.
I want to spend just a few minutes this morning raising a few concerns at this stage, and to state why I believe we should take another look at this particular Bill. Something which seems to me to be rather interesting is that the provisions of the Bill would give the new security service, as I read it, more powers in many ways than the FBI possesses in the United States. That seems to me a rather strange phenomenon, Mr. Speaker, because political violence in this country is really quite insignificant when compared to violence in the United States throughout the years.
The United States is a much more violent society. Some four Presidents have been assassinated. I am, of course, old enough to remember the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. Despite that kind of problem, the security agency there, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, does not have some of the powers that this Government wants to give the security service in Canada. There was the attempted assassination of President Reagan about two or three years ago. We have been fortunate here not to have that kind of violence against our political leaders, with the exception of the 1970 FLQ crisis. Therefore I think it is rather strange that we give this kind of sweeping power to the security service. We should take a very careful look at that.
There are also all kinds of organizations extremely concerned about what this might do to our civil liberties and to the freedom of people who launch legitimate protests.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a strong concern about the content of the debate at this point. We have a motion to delete the title of the Bill. I am aware that the Hon. Member has some general observations, but report stage amendment is not a repetition of debate in principle, which ordinarily takes place at second reading. The Chair invites the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), experienced parliamentarian that he is, to address his remarks to the precise amendment before us.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I perhaps made the mistake of following precedents. I do not think I have been more general than most of my colleagues on this particular amendment. I
suppose one can say that the title is very symbolic of the Bill itself, and that is why this amendment was moved by my colleague from Burnaby. The title itself shows that this security agency is going to have powers which are not really needed and which might be an infringement upon the civil liberties of innocent people. That is not a concern just of some Members of this House; it is a concern of a number of organizations around the country, including some of our leading newspapers, churches, peace and labour groups. They are also concerned about the unnecessary powers being given to the new security agency. I do not really think those powers are necessary. The Security Service within the RCMP has adequate powers. It can do the things that have to be done to protect the security of the country.
I, along with a number of other Members, was here in October, 1970, during the FLQ crisis. I saw the sweeping measures brought in under the War Measures Act, and I saw the number of innocent people who were arrested.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is going to range into that particular subject, will he please let the Chair know how he can relate that to the elimination of the title of the Bill?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This is the title of the Bill.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the sweeping powers in the Bill. Of course the title is symbolic of that. It signals the kind of powers which are contained within the Bill. I lived through a period when two sweeping powers were utilized, and a lot of innocent people were injured because of that.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What has that got to do with the title?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: This is one of the reasons why this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The difficulty of the Chair is this. Presumably the Member is speaking in favour of removing the title from the Bill. There must be some argument presented as to why he wants the title removed from the Bill. I ask the Member, if he would not mind, to continue his remarks referring to the reason he wants the title removed from the Bill.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have pretty well summarized it. I will just leave it at that. I think the title is symbolic of the Bill and the concerns contained within it. I will abide by your ruling and participate later on during report stage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in order that everything I say within the next 10 minutes will be understood to be germane to this, I support the idea of the motion here with respect to Clause 1, the short title. Clause 1 says that "This Act may be cited as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act". That is a misnomer. The title of the Bill does not reflect exactly what the Government has put forward with respect to this legislation. This legislation has many very serious and danger-
June 18, 1984

ous elements contained within its body. That is not reflected in the title.
When we talk about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act we must look at precisely what has happened before and since last Saturday. Now that the Liberal Party has a new Leader, I would like to know where the new Leader stands with respect to the oppressive elements of this legislation. Is the new Leader-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. Would the Member please help the Chair by telling the Chair how that particular argument can be related to eliminating the title from the Bill?


Mr. Blenkarn:: It does.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the title is a misnomer because it does not adequately describe the apparatus and mechanism established within this legislation. You can understand that, Mr. Speaker.
I want to know whether the Government's policy with respect to this legislation continues. Are we going to assume that the new Leader of the government Party subscribes to this misnomer, this statement of what this Bill purports to encompass, or does he not? I believe we are entitled to hear from the Government side whether, by way of example, the new Leader of the Liberal Party thinks that this legislation should be amended in a substantial way. According to Mr. John Turner, should the title of this Bill be an RCMP security service or should it be a civilian intelligence agency? That is germane to the title of this legislation. Where does Mr. Turner stand with respect to this very important element?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Where does he stand?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. As the present occupant of the chair I do not consider that we can introduce into debate anything other than the Bill itself. The contents of the Bill are a government matter. I am not prepared to hear any discussion on any changes that may or may not take place on the government side for as long as the Government remains in office.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, understand your position as the independent chairman of these proceedings. I will put it in another way. Does the title of this Bill clearly define the legislation we are considering? I think that is germane, and Your Honour clearly can understand that.
Our Party has been vigorous in our opposition with respect to this legislation because we believe that an intelligence service should contain safeguards for the Canadian people. Our critics and spokespersons on this legislation have come forward on a number of occasions and demonstrated the fact that this service that is being established seriously jeopardizes the safeguards of the civil liberties of Canadians.
Security Intelligence Service
We believe that this legislation and its title, which represents the intention of the Government, do not meet the expectation of the Canadian public and do not meet the anticipation of those who are concerned about the national security of our country. I simply say that this is a germane provision of the legislation and we wish to demonstrate our concern and opposition with respect to the way in which the Government is operating with this legislation.
A number of people have commented on this agency. We had a long debate with respect to procedural matters before the Speaker, in which I thought I had made it abundantly clear that this Bill is entitled the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and does not refer to a civilian security intelligence service. Indeed, our Party put forward a number of proposals, not only at second reading but in the course of committee debate and report stage, urging that the RCMP should be involved in this new security service.
It is clear that the Government's policy has been one of distancing itself from the RCMP and leaving that proud force to hang out to dry. That has been the intention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). That is why he is so anxious for this title to go forward. That is why he is anxious to have a civilian service. It is because he knows that the Government has left the RCMP in a very unfortunate position. It has not been supportive of that police force which has the respect of the vast majority of Canadians.
All that I can say is that, as far as we are concerned, we in this Party are proud of the service to Canadians that has been performed by the RCMP. We feel that that force has been severely maligned by the Liberal Government which, during the course of the difficulties of the 1970s, left the RCMP to hang out to dry, hid behind the RCMP, and took no political responsibility.
Now, when it comes to establishing an intelligence service in our country, the Government will in effect say to those proud members of our national police force that they are responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the past and the Government accepts no responsibility. It will not be reminded of its own shortcomings and lack of political accountability.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. The Chair is very sorry, but the Chair has reread the title. It is the opinion of the Chair that the title is sufficiently broad that the debate could relate to the title, as to whether the title should or should not be included in the Bill. I do not believe the Member should be broadly ranging in his remarks on a motion which is very specific. The ten minutes accorded to the individual Member should relate to this particular motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, thank you for supporting me on the relevance of what I have said. While you understand what I am saying, I will try to make it clear the Members of the government side because they have difficulty understanding basic and fundamental concepts.
I was saying that the title does not adequately and properly reflect the contents of the Bill. It talks about a Canadian Security Intelligence Service but it does not talk about the fact

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
that this is a civilian service. It does not talk about the fact that the RCMP is being removed from responsibility in terms of security items. That is why this title is inappropriate and why the Government should give serious consideration to renaming the Bill and to being candid about the change. It should be entitled an Act to try to get the Canadian people to forget that the Liberal Government refused to accept responsibility in the past for security services. Taht is what the title should be. The Liberals should not be talking about a brand-new security service because what they are trying to do is to hide their political past. Somehow I think the fact should be reflected in the title of this Bill. They are the ones who left the security service, which is under the aegis of the RCMP, hanging out to dry during the time of the FLQ crisis and the Quebec situation.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling that my time is coming to a close. I hope I have been able to demonstrate and to convince you, at least, that this title is inappropriate. It does not reflect what is happening with respect to this legislation nor does it reflect what has transpired. I know it is difficult for these people in the Government Party to understand, but at some time I would like to find out just where Mr. John Turner stands on this issue.


Mr. Evans:: Wait for the next election.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the debate this morning specifically on the wording of the title. It reads:
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 thereto.
I believe it is extremely important to be able to define correctly what is going on, to say a thing clearly so that it relates to an idea which everybody understands. What I talk about is not a new idea.
In the first chapter of the book of Genesis the question of being able to name the creation is how ancient people addressed the very important fact of why human beings differing from other beings in creation are able to explain, to say and to know exactly what an idea is.
In the title before us I feel there are certain words that in no way explain what is meant or understood. The first word is "security". I have already spoken to this idea. I want to say again that I believe the word "security", at least in English, is a word that does not have a clear understanding today. It is a vague word. In fact, it is more than vague; it is a word that to my mind has literally changed its meaning in my lifetime and during the time I have been speaking the English language. When I was a child, as other Members of my age will remember, the word "security" referred to a state of being. It was the kind of thing that happened when you were safe at home. It was the kind of thing that took place when you had enough to eat and you were warm and dry. It is an idea signifying that basically you were in good status.
I believe in our lifetime, and recently more so than ever, the word security has litarelly changed its meaning for many, many people. The word security more frequently now is used, and used very commonly, to refer to the fact that everybody has to be mistrusted. I think the best example I can give in the experience of everyone in this House of Commons and of every Canadian is how a person is treated when going to board an airplane. Not many years ago I could go to an airport and board an airplane with the same facility as I can board a bus or a train. In recent times, because of incidents in international aviation, security clearance has become an accepted pattern in many parts of the world, although in some places security clearance is being overlooked and in some Latin American countries I know now that security is not carried out at the airports. But notice how I use the word "security". Security now refers to an event, a happening or a situation in which everybody is considered a possible criminal. People have to be challenged personally at a particular time to make sure they are not criminals. I believe that is against our tradition. I believe that in the tradition of Canadian life it is important to remember people are not criminals before you address them.
I find it very disconcerting and in a sense dangerous that many people, without thinking, accept the fact that you have to go through security to get on an airplane. I do not feel any more secure getting on an airplane after having gone through the little electronic door than before. I believe anyone who wants to steal an airplane will steal an airplane whether that person goes through the electronic door or not. That does not make me any more secure. But the falseness that anybody can look after your security, that "big brother" somewhere can make you more secure, is what this Bill is basically about.
When I address the title, Mr. Speaker, and that word "security", I feel we are being led down the road. Probably if we want to use the word security, we would be on much safer ground if we started to call the Bill something like a Bill to set up the national security state. The national security state is a reality. I have lived in national security states. A national security state was a movement that took place in the last 20 years. In many of the Third World developing countries, Latin America in particular, a national security state became a dominating philosophy of the people in power. It became the philosophy that those who were against the people in power were subversives. National security police agencies were required and these people would go after the subversives. 1 speak from conviction and from experience.
That kind of state developed in very democratic countries and it developed in the last few years. Chile is an example. It is a national security state in the new understanding of national security. Chile has a massive police force, an army, not to go against people of other countries but to go against its own people. That situation also took place in Brazil, Bolivia and Uruguay. It still exists in Uruguay. Last week the Leader of the Opposition of the Uruguayan Parliament returned to Uruguay and was immediately imprisoned. Why? Because he had committed a crime? No, because the national security
June 18, 1984

state said that he did not have a right to be in opposition to those in power.
What about the notion of this Bill and its name? Remember that naming something is extremely important. A dictionary will explain how to name something. It will tell you the genus of what something is basically about, that two things coming together will make it possible for a human being in his or her mind to say that this particular being over here is this and not that. The title of this Bill, at least to my mind, does not tell me it is this and not that. I think Canadians are aware of this. I have been told that a more apt name, if we want to think about another name, would be to call it an Act to suppress the civil liberties of Canadians. That might be closer to the understanding of what the Bill does and it might be easier for Canadians to understand. Mr. Speaker, I believe personally that the present title does not give us a clear understanding of what is going to take place in this Bill. The Bill should be clearly titled and understood before its less important matters are debated. I hope the Minister who has proposed this Bill will hear what is being said and will understand that what is taking place in the naming of the Bill is extremely important. It has not been well done.
The second word in the Bill that I believe should have a much more clear understanding is "intelligence". What does intelligence mean in present day English or present day French? To what does it refer? Whose life does it interfere with? What does it mean in relation to myself or to any other Canadian? Who has the right to look into my life, to find out things about my life, to keep them secret from me and from lots of other people, but which could be used against me whenever those in power decide that I have become a subversive, one who endangers the security, as they would say, of the state?


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite honoured to have an opportunity to make some comments regarding Bill C-9, especially the very first clause in it, the short title, which reads:
This Act may be cited as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
When I read that title, I become very concerned. Not long ago I recall that George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four publication received a round of support as we entered the year 1984. Canadians reread that piece of work and were reminded of the term "doublespeak" or "newspeak". During 1984, as described by George Orwell, the term was used to describe something that was not what was actually there but was the opposite. For example, when it talked about the department of privacy, it did not mean that there was a department concerned with the privacy of people, but quite the contrary. There was a department concerned with prying, spying and poking into the lives of people in terms of carrying on an intelligence service in the interests of those few people who control the state. When I look closely at the title which we are debating at the moment as part of the report stage amendments, I see terms such as "security". This is a security force,
Security Intelligence Service
yet when we consider what the Bill will do, we wonder to what extent people will feel that their lives are more secure.
I want to identify for the benefit of Hon. Members the security about which we are talking as part of this new civilian service. It will have the right to open confidential first-class mail. That will be a given right. It will also have the right to open confidential tax files on individuals, so that information presented to tax officials in confidence, in an effort to maintain an open and democratic system, will not be confidential. These tax files will be open to agents of this agency. We all have in our safety deposit boxes confidential legal files with our lawyers, all kinds of confidential papers such as wills, et cetera. They are simply agreements between ourselves and individuals which are not for public consumption or for public eyes. Yet this agency will have the opportunity to access such files, all in the name of security. The notes of journalists and broadcasters will be open to inquiry on behalf of agents. This is what this Bill calls security. Security for whom?
Psychiatric and all kinds of medical records will be open to the security force. All records of government and of all public and private agencies will be open to agents of this organization. Family allowance application forms and various medical files will be open to them. Even when a person goes to confession in a church and speaks with his priest, it will not be in confidence. Those discussions will be open for inquiry through agents of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Let us consider what the term "security" means in the title. It means that there will not be any security, that all areas which are considered to be highly confidential, such as agreements between two parties, individuals and groups, will be open for inquiry, surveillance and examination by this particular agency.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) clearly articulated that it meant in many countries to be secure when the security forces were really oppressive armies with the sole responsibility of providing anything but security. They make every home in the nation tremble with fear at night when there is a knock at the door; they wonder whether the security force is coming to take them away to be shot, imprisoned or tortured. That is what security has come to mean in many countries.
When I hear and read that the security intelligence service will have unlimited freedoms to pry, poke and inquire into all aspects of the lives of Canadian citizens, I become very concerned. Also I become concerned with another part of the Bill which does not use the term "secret". The implication is that somehow this will not be secret, undercover work. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and other colleagues of mine have called on many occasions for the need for accountability so that these services are not cloak and dagger endeavours but will be accountable to Parliament and to parliamentarians through a special committee or a special system. However, the Government says that it wants to keep it secret, that it does not want to have Parliament and its elected representatives involved in any way at all.

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
When we consider what might be an appropriate title, perhaps we should consider something like the Canadian suppressive, spying and prying non-accountable service, in an effort to describe more adequately what is going on with Bill C-9. Its particular title does not serve us well. It simply shrouds and clouds what is beneath the legislation and gives one misinformation as to what is actually going on.
Also there is no motion of "civilian" in the title. Government Members have been rising and reminding us as Opposition Members that this is a change from the RCMP, that it will now be a civilian agency. As a western Canadian who grew up studying the history of western Canada and learned from the beginning that security-law and order as we have come to know it-was first introduced in the west through the RCMP, which was then known as the North West Mounted Police, I wonder what is wrong with the work that it has done.
I recognize that there have been problems and that there have been some changes to legislation, but by and large I, like other western Canadians, feel quite strongly about the role it has played in terms of the security of western Canada. We wonder what is behind this move, particularly when we read articles such as the one that appeared in The Glove and Mail in February this year. It read: "Kaplan opens doors locked even to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States". It indicated that FBI, operating in a country where security was much more appropriate than here in Canada as it was one of the major powers in the world, does not even begin to have the same powers which will be given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We must ask ourselves as concerned parliamentarians and legislators why we would want extensively more powers for prying, surveillance and undercover work in Canada than is the case in the United States through the FBI.
Those questions have not been answered to date. I become concerned when I am approached by church, labour, business women's and peace groups. I could list a number of groups in my constituency who have asked about the service. For example, a number of groups in the Kamloops-Shuswap area are involved in raising money and helping various relief organizations in certain countries. They look at this particular Bill and ask whether they will now be seeing agents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service involved, in a sense, in infiltrating these groups to find out to what extent they are supporting groups in countries such as El Salvador through relief organizations. Are they sympathetic with the rebels in El Salvador and therefore opposed to democracy? We have been told that democracy is being introduced in El Salvador but of course no one believes it. That is the myth. By supporting in some way the rebels, are they now opposing the concept of democracy? Are they supporting subversives? These security people could quite easily break into churches, tap their telephones and open their mail. They could have various agents infiltrating church groups because of a fear of subversion. What we have is simply a congregation attempting to raise funds through bazaars, garage sales and the like to assist in relief operations in countries such as El Salvador.

In closing, this title concerns me very much. It does not adequately explain what is involved in Bill C-9. We would like to see this amendment supported and the title removed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. Before recognizing the next speaker, may the Chair again refer to the motion before the House. I personally do not believe that the motion is particularly restrictive, but when addressing their remarks to the House, I want Members to refer specifically to the title and the fashion in which they are bringing their remarks to the motion before the House.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to 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 thereto. Clause 1 of the Bill reads:
This Act may be cited as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
With due respect, I say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) that the title is very misleading. We very much object to it. It does not identify the seriousness of what the Bill entails. As the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) stated, the word "security" has many meanings.
When I am in my riding, it is this Bill that is most often referred to. People are concerned. This title in no way expresses the kind of concern they have brought to my attention. They are concerned that there will be someone supposedly in a security role doing things which they suspect will be far beyond what the title suggests. We know the Bill goes far beyond that. For the House to accept this title when the Bill has such far-reaching effects on all Canadians, especially civilians, is wrong. The title is misleading and wrong. The Government should take another look at it. We do not agree with many parts of the Bill. The title does not identify our real concerns.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) identified many of our concerns with regard to the word "Intelligence" and how this will affect people in their normal lives. To say that this Act may be cited as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is totally misleading.
You have asked us, Mr. Speaker, to deal specifically with the title. I will try to do that. However, the title is so far out of context that it is very difficult to deal with it in that manner. Every speaker from this Party has expressed concern about the far-reaching effects of this Bill. I cannot over-emphasize the fact that the Solicitor General is trying to push this Bill through the House in the last few days. The title of this Bill is so misleading and wrong that we cannot accept it.
Who has the right to look into my life or the life of any of my constituents in an intelligence role? Who has the right to suggest what security we need? We have a police force that has been accepted all across Canada. There are other areas of concern. We can identify them. Do we have to set up an Act
June 18, 1984

that may be cited as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act? I think not. The title is wrong.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap identified such areas as tampering with the private lives of people. I want to look at the possibility of this Bill reaching into the workplace in such areas as compensation cases. The intelligence service may look into the background of compensation cases to see whether these people are allowed to work in other areas. That kind of intelligence service is wrong. The average Canadian does not want that. It is wrong for the Government to use this kind of title. The Government knows that this Bill has far-reaching effects, far beyond the title it has put forward.
We have identified this portion of the Bill. As we get into other parts of the Bill, we will identify other areas. This title should be removed. The Member for Saskatoon East suggested that if the Government were truthful in what it is putting forward, we would not even have a democracy in Canada. This kind of title is misleading. It does not tell Canadians what is in the Bill. There are some very serious ramifications. The title does not reflect the ramifications, the secret service and intelligence work that will go on in the back rooms. The Bill does not relate to the suspicions that people will have.
The average Canadian reading this title would wonder what the problem is and why we members in the House are standing up. The short title clause reads:
This Act may be cited as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
That sounds pretty timid. It sounds as though the Bill has no real significance. The title is misleading. It is wrong. The Solicitor General knows it is wrong. The Government knows it is wrong. They are trying to hide behind a title that is misleading. That is not in the best interest of Canada.
We on this side know what the Government is trying to do. We know they are misleading the Canadian people. They may be able to mislead them in other areas, but they will not mislead those of us on this side of the House. The New Democratic Party feels that this is wrong. The title is wrong, it should be changed. It should be more truthful. The Liberal Government has a policy of hiding behind misdemeanors, hiding behind titles, trying to make them appear less restrictive than they are.
We in the New Democratic Party know what the Government is trying to do. It has been trying to push this Bill through since January. It is again trying to put it through. We object to the title.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Well, vote against it.


Sidney James Parker: We object to the Solicitor General trying to push it through at this time.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If you don't like it, vote against it. That's your right.


Sidney James Parker: The Solicitor General says "vote against it". The Solicitor General should withdraw the Bill and reword it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You do not decide what the House does.
Security Intelligence Service


Sidney James Parker: The Solicitor General says I do not decide. We will have some say about what is going on in this House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: So will we.


Sidney James Parker: The NDP will not allow him to ram it through. We are going to speak out against this clause in particular. It is misleading and wrong. The Solicitor General says vote against it. We will vote against this clause, rest assured about that. It is wrong. The Solicitor General knows it is wrong. We in this Party know it is wrong.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I kind of like the name of the Bill as described in Clause 1, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. If the name were reflective of what was in the Bill, it could serve Canadians well, However, I will be voting for the amendment to Clause 1 to delete the short title of the Bill because I do not think it is reflective of what is contained in the Bill, hat is unfortunate because we in the House of Commons have had the opportunity to deal with the concern of Canadians about national security and the opportunity to deal with legislation which would make terrorism, espionage and subversive activity more difficult for those who would participate in such activities. However, the Bill does not do that and is therefore, misnamed.
We are, of course, concerned about subversive activities undertaken by nationals outside of Canada. We would like to have a security service, whether it is an RCMP security service or a civilian security service, which has the power to determine threats to Canadian security. This Party has made amendments to this Bill which would clearly define some of the activities about which we in Canada are concerned. However, the Bill does not simply deal with espionage and subversive activities. The Bill has the power to undermine the civil liberties of many Canadians because of its provisions for wiretapping with the approval of a Federal Court judge, for the opening of first-class mail and for the availability of almost any public or private document to an ill-defined intelligence service.
The title of the Bill does not make it clear whether the intelligence service will be a civilian one or whether it will fall under the aegis of the RCMP as it presently does. The title of the Bill is not reflective of the broad powers the Bill introduces over Canadian civil liberties and the power for the infringement on those civil liberties which Canadians have been so adamant in protecting.
Many of my own constituents believe that this Bill is necessary. However, they are not aware of what the Bill actually provides for in terms of the infringement of the freedoms that they enjoy at the moment. By looking at the title only, I think the general public would feel fairly certain that this Bill in fact provides for an intelligence service similar to the FBI in the United States but are unaware that it provides even broader powers than those given to the FBI, an agency whose powers are looked at with some suspicion by many Canadians.

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
The intelligence aspect of this Bill deals with developing a secret intelligence among subversive groups within and outside Canada. However, the Bill's definition of subversive groups in Canada is very broad and can include many legitimate groups of dissent of which Canadians are supportive and protective. As well, the intelligence aspect of the Bill only relates to the civilian intelligence agency that will be formed by this Bill. It gives that agency broad powers to look into documentation of a public and private nature.
The Bill really does not deal with what we in the NDP think is very important, and that is the ability of parliamentarians themselves to understand and have access to some of the information that will be gathered by the RCMP agency or the new civilian agency. No parliamentary committee with oversight is proposed in the Bill. The title of the Bill would indicate to Canadians that an agency will be gathering intelligence on foreign nationals and groups that are attempting to overthrow legitimate governments or organizations within Canada. However, that title does not significantly define the flaw in this Bill, which is that parliamentarians will not have access to all of the information to which the intelligence service and the oversight committee have access. That oversight committee would include an Inspector General and three to five review committee members. Parliament will not have access to Cabinet documents and will not have the same kind of access to information that is gathered by the intelligence service as will the overview committee provided for by this Bill. I believe that that is a major flaw in the Bill. We as elected representatives should have a parliamentary committee that will look into this Security Intelligence Service. Such a committee is essential. Because that essential committee is not provided for by the Bill, it makes the title of the Bill invalid.
I would think that the title of the Bill would give Canadians the feeling that the security service will look at foreign nationals and foreign governments and that the intelligence aspect of it will be the gathering of intelligence which would be available to the security agency. I think the Canadian public would feel more secure with the knowledge that Parliament itself was looking at the service provided by the new civilian security service and that Parliament was confident that the civil liberties of Canadians were not being infringed upon in an attempt to gather information on sources within Canada and on Canadian citizens. Canadians would feel more secure if we as parliamentarians knew that any necessary wiretapping was legitimate and that the documents that were being investigated by the civilian service were truly important to its investigations and did not cause an infringement upon the common liberties to which Canadians have become accustomed and are intent upon protecting. Although I would like to see this Bill rightfully entitled the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, I do not think that the Bill itself reflects its title and I will certainly be supporting the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Order, please. Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 disposes of Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 5. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 disposes of Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates a separate vote on Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
He said: I wonder if I could just seek some clarification, Mr. Speaker. Does the Chair intend to put Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 at this time as well?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I will put the other motions. However, the Chair is having some difficulty. Motion No. 5 is in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who is not present in the House. Therefore, I require an Hon. Member to indicate that he is prepared to agree that the motion should go forward in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


Mr. Fraser:: I will be very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to introduce that motion.


John Allen Fraser: Motion No. 5
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,
June 18, 1984

(b)	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.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 2. Motion No. 7
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 41 to 46 at page 2. Motion No. 8
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 1 to 6 at page 3. Motion No. 9
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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For debate, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion that in the alternative would delete Clause 2, or would amend Clause 2 by deleting a number of the proposed subparagraphs which are contained in that clause. Clause 2 is, in many respects, one of the most important clauses in this legislation. It is the clause which defines the scope of the mandate of the new security service with respect to the targeting of so-called threats to the security of Canada.
I could do no better, in pointing out the very seriously flawed nature of this clause, than to quote from another motion which is before the House at this time, that of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand). He was a former Solicitor General for a period of four years, and therefore is obviously in a position to be well aware of the nature of the threats which should be pursued by a security service in this country. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East said the following:
This is a key clause in the Bill, and on my examination it is an extremely flawed clause. I think it has been greatly improved over Bill C-157, but it is still very seriously flawed.
Those are the words of a former Solicitor General and a member of the Government side of the House.
The definition of "threats to the security of Canada", which is the object of at least part of the motion before the House at this time, is dangerously broad. It would permit the targeting of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have broken no law whatsoever, but who are engaging in dissent. Historically, we know that one of the great difficulties of the RCMP security service has been distinguishing between subversion and dissent. This Bill would permit the targeting of Canadians who are engaged in dissent.
Security Intelligence Service
I have only ten minutes and therefore can give but a few illustrations of the dangerous scope of this particular provision. The legislation refers to threats to the security of Canada. The definition is so broadly worded that Canadians who support liberation movements in Central America, or a church group which would like to support liberation movements in Central America-which is struggling against oppression, violence and brutality-could be targeted. The members of that group could have their telephones bugged, their mail opened, their medical records examined, and made subject to all of the intrusive techniques, which would include the placing of an informer in the group, without any requirement whatsoever for a judicial warrant. The Bill does not even provide for the minimal safeguard of a judicial warrant.
A further example could involve trade unions. If the Canadian Labour Congress decided that it would like to support the African National Congress in its attempt to eliminate the institutionalized, violent system of apartheid in South Africa, it could be targeted. How on earth could it be suggested that those kinds of activities should be the legitimate scope of a security service which supposedly is watching over the best interests and security of Canadians?
As well, I would note that the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" includes a very broad reference to so-called domestic subversives. Despite repeated attempts by members of my Party in committee, as well as many witnesses, to seek clarification from the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) as to who these so-called domestic subversives are who are gnawing away, using violent means against the democratic fabric of our society, he was not able to give a single illustration of such a threat to the security of Canada today.
The Solicitor General has said: "What about the future? Should we not have these kinds of powers so that if such a threat does arise in the future, we can deal with it?" My answer to that question is clearly no. If the Government can point to a threat of that nature in the future, then it should come before Parliament and seek the necessary powers. No Parliament will deny the powers which are necessary to deal with a legitimate threat to the security of this country. To suggest, on the basis of some alleged threat, that we should give the security service the powers which are sought by the Solicitor General, I submit is completely without foundation.
Instead of including within the mandate of the security service the power to deal with Canadians who have not broken the law but who are allegedly involved in so-called subversive activities, I suggest that we look very carefully at the American example. Far from enhancing the powers of the security service in the United States to deal with so-called domestic subversion, in the wake of the Watergate revelations they moved in the oppositive direction. The Solicitor General is indicating that we should not use a criminal standard, but that those which we suspect may be involved in so-called domestic subversion could have all of the intrusive techniques used against them. I would say to the Solicitor General that threats south of the border, in the United States, are no less serious and no less significant than threats to the seucrity of Canada.

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Yet the United States has not gone anywhere near as far as the legislation which this Solicitor General is proposing. In that case there must be evidence of a breach or a suspected breach of criminal law.
In looking to the future, we must take some cognizance of the past. We have seen all to clearly the abuses of the RCMP's security service under this head of so-called "domestic subversion", the fact that files were opened on over 800,000 Canadians. We still do not know how many have been destroyed. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there were Canadians targeted who broke no law whatsoever. What this Bill will do, Mr. Speaker, is institutionalize that mandate.
My ten minutes for debate on report stage is coming to an end, but I would like to note and to draw to the attention of Hon. Member the comments which were made by representatives of citizens' coalitions, the Montreal coalition of citizens against state surveillance, the Vancouver coalition against the security Bill, and so on, which pointed out that in the guise of protecting the security of Canadians, what this Government is doing in fact is fundamentally attacking the security of Canadians. In the guise of enhancing civil liberties, it is attacking civil liberties. If the definition proposed in Clause No. 2 is carried, then, as those coalitions put it, this will impose a chill on democracy in this country and will be the first step down the slippery slope towards a denial of those civil liberties which Canadians have fought long and hard to protect. I urge the adoption of these motions, Mr. Speaker.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak on Clause 2 of Bill C-9. In committee, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council of Churches put forward many concerns with regard to Bill C-9 and specifically Clause 2 of the Bill. I would like to quote some of the things it had to say with respect to some of the concerns it has, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Council of Churches submitted that the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" is vague and uncertain and hence is excessively broad in effect. It is particularly concerned about the effect of broad interpretations of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 2. Its submission is, and I quote:
-the Canadian security intelligence security could construe lawful church activities, for example in mission work, and-or lawful church and community activities, including development, education, peace advocacy and human rights defence as falling within these lawful activities as threats to the security of Canada.
Clause 2 of Bill C-9 is very broad, Mr. Speaker. It gives the Government and this intelligence service broad, sweeping powers which go far beyond what anyone could imagine. Another area in which the Canadian Council of Churches expressed their concern is with regard to Clause 2(a) and (b) and the vague phrase "the interests of Canada". The Council states,and I quote:
What are the legitimate "interests of Canada"? Who defines these "interests"? Are the "interests of Canada" distinguishable from the interests of the citizens of Canada? Could there be a legitimate conflict among the citizens of Canada as to just what Canada's "interests" are?
Those are the questions which the Canadian Council of Churches is asking. Further on in its report the Canadian Council of Churches states:
With regard to paragraph (b) for example: consider that a visiting foreign finance minister from a country where churches have carried on mission work for many years, requests a private meeting with Canadian church officials, in Canada, to discuss Canadian aid and trade policies.
He wishes to decrease his country's dependence on Canadian exports, while maintaining or increasing Canadian aid to his country.
Those are far-reaching concerns, Mr. Speaker, and are concerns which the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) should be considering instead of trying to push through a Bill which gives these broad, sweeping powers.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You have put your amendments on already.


Sidney James Parker: The Solicitor General says to put our amendments on.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You have already.


Sidney James Parker: We have asked for these powers to be deleted.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Let us vote on your amendments.


Sidney James Parker: The powers this Bill gives go beyond what even the McDonald Commission was suggesting. We say it is wrong, wrong, wrong! In a brief submitted by Dr. Philip B. Berger, it is stated:
Section 2 of the Act is so broad that any Canadian citizen involved in human rights work on behalf of people in any foreign state would be defined as a security threat to Canada. Even with assurances from the current Government that the Act will not be used to stifle the activities of human rights organizations there is no guarantee that future governments will hold the same view. For the Act will remain while governments change.
That should be a concern, Mr. Speaker. Clause 2 is so broad in its scope that it should concern every citizen in Canada, because every citizen in Canada is going to be affected by what is in this piece of legislation. We have seen some of the powers which governments have used. We saw some of those powers when the War Measures Act was brought in in Quebec. Granted, there was a problem; but the civil liberties of people were still suppressed, and this Bill will go a long way in bringing about those kinds of activities.
We in the New Democratic Party do not like to see those broad powers given to an intelligence service in the name of security. We say that Parliament, or some committee of Members of Parliament from all parties, should have some overview of this at least once a year to monitor the kind of things which are going on. Those are some of the suggestions which were put forward.
We believe Clause 2 of Bill C-9, Mr. Speaker, will take away many of the democratic rights which we enjoy in Canada. We have the democratic right to be able to assemble without fear of an intelligence service coming in with these broad powers to oversee and to spy. We believe, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) suggested with regard to the privacy of safety deposit boxes, that wills which have been completed and are contained in them could be
June 18, 1984

scrutinized. We have seen some of the activities of the Income Tax Department. If this kind of intelligence service was to get into those areas, people in Canada would live in fear of an intelligence service looking over their shoulder at every turn. Clause 2 as proposed by the Liberal Government gives those kinds of broad, sweeping powers to this intelligence service. We say it is wrong for the Solicitor General to be pushing this Bill through at this time, trying to get it through before the House adjourns. We ask him to delete the broad, sweeping powers which Clause 2 puts in to the hands of this intelligence service.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am going to support the amendment calling for the deletion of Clause 2. We would ask that the Government and the Official Opposition as well stand with us and delete these broad powers. We say they are wrong and should not be put forward. The Canadian Council of Churches has identified its concerns. The medical associations have expressed their concerns. As I go through my riding, my constituents have been expressing their concerns. I urge the Government to delete Clause 2.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there have been two speakers from the New Democratic Party on this clause and no speakers from the Conservative Party. I do not know whether they have an interest in the Bill or-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair will recognize an Hon. Member if an Hon. Member wishes to stand.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You are just wasting time, gentlemen.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, you would think the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) did not understand the law, or at least the rules of Parliament. He keeps trying to interrupt and I would be glad if he would get up and defend some of the points being attacked. But he does not want to do that, he just wants to stay put in his seat and heckle.
The fact is that this clause has been rejected by spokespeo-ple for a great many Canadians; not just the churches or the labour movement, but all kinds of groups across the country, even including the medical profession. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has objected very strongly. If you add these groups together, even allowing for a certain overlap, you find a majority of Canadians, certainly a majority of the articulate Canadians, are against this Bill. There is almost no one speaking out in favour of it except the Solicitor General and his caucus, who are no doubt acting according to some kind of direction which they have not explained to us. This Bill has been condemned again and again by all kinds of Canadians, particularly this clause because it is too vague. The
Security Intelligence Service
Solicitor General has simply refused to countenance any kind of restriction or sharpening of the meaning of the clause, even when it was moved in committee by a former Solicitor General who has much wider support and respect among the people of Canada than the present Solicitor General has.
The term "sabotage" is undefined, which has given great concern to a number of unions. The Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto, in a telegram dated June 7, said:
We wish to advise you that the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto is opposed to the passage of C-9 in its current form.
It is signed Wally Majesky, Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto. This is in keeping with a number of briefs presented to the committee which focused on the vagueness of the terms in Clause 2 under which people can be attacked by this so-called security service. Suppose that unions were engaged in what is basically essential and legitimate activity for a labour union, a withdrawal of labour, namely a strike. Suppose there was a strike by merchant seamen. Would the Minister or some unnamed director of this secret service choose to identify that as sabotage? Would Parliament ever have a chance to review that decision?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The answer is that they would make those decisions but Parliament would not have a chance to review it unless the Director of the Service chose to present it in a report to Parliament and raise that question for consideration. That is not very likely to happen. The Director would simply decide that it is a security matter which he would withhold from Parliament.
The same can be said for the railway and trucking unions, or unions in the communications industry. If they carry on their legitimate activities and the government of the day chose to do as this Government has done and rule it illegal, or they change the law as they did against the postal workers a few years ago, then this kind of legislation could be used. Given the past performance of the Solicitor General in condoning, excusing and protecting the crimes of the RCMP, it probably would be used not only to throw some of those trade unionists in jail but also to take further action against them under this Bill and accuse them of some kind of sabotage.
Suppose there were peaceful and non-violent demonstrations against the production of weapons, such as with Litton Systems in Toronto. Again, instead of charges only of trespass, which Canadians have been willing to undertake in order to make their protest, or charges of perhaps obstructing police, which were questionable in that case, the Minister may be providing here that those people could be charged with sabotage or treason or some such undefined term. We have the testimony of a Dr. Berger, later supported by the Canadian Medical Association, pointing out that Canadian doctors have examined people who were tortured in some authoritarian regimes and those examinations have been used by groups in Canada opposed to those regimes. Under the terms of Clause 2 not only those groups but those doctors could be drawn into the net and accused. A phrase like "foreign-influenced activi-

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
ties", or "activities detrimental to the interests of Canada", could have been applied against the many tens of thousands of Canadians who supported the California grape boycott. Words like "clandestine" and "deceptive" are simply undefined here.
There have been other union boycotts affecting other countries perhaps allied to Canada. The boycott of J. P. Stevens textiles produced in vicious anti-union shops in the southern United States is an example. For all we know, some anonymous or practically unknown director of the security service could decide that was detrimental to the interests of Canada and that therefore the people leading that boycott should be subjected to all the attacks available under this so-called security legislation.
For several years church leaders in Canada conducted an information and criticism campaign against Noranda Mining because of its interest in supporting the fascist dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile. There was money to be made in the copper mines there by using cheap labour. The churches did their best to expose and oppose Noranda's action in this situation, and this could be construed by Noranda as contrary to its interests. They wanted to make more money. People in sympathy with Noranda's desire to make more money, who dominate this present Government and perhaps even the one that wishes to succeed it, people who think money comes first, might well have accused all those church leaders of acting contrary to the interests of Canada.
In the case of the Middle East, whether you were in support of Israel or Lebanon, you could be accused in Canada of supporting someone trying to act against a foreign state. In South Africa the point has already been made. In Namibia the point is even more confused. If someone supported the UN position in Namibia, which is contrary to that of the South African Government, he might be accused under this clause. But if someone supported the position of the South African Government, which is contrary to the United Nations' position, since we are a member of the United Nations he could be accused.
This is not fantasy, Mr. Speaker. A few months ago four men were arrested in Toronto. The main accusation against them was that they were Armenians. They are in fact of Armenian origin. They belong to certain Armenian groups. They were accused, and I was present when the accusation was read in court, of being engaged in certain criminal activities in Canada, such as extortion. They were acquitted. They spent a long time in jail because they were not allowed bail, and the judge said in effect that the only evidence against them was that they belonged to an organization of Armenians campaigning for justice over the Armenian massacre by the Turks many years ago, and campaigning for independence from Turkey. Simply because they belonged to an organization which advocated a change in Turkey, under our present laws those men spent many weeks in jail. Under the law sought by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), they would probably be locked up for many years to come. That would be wholly unjust according to the present standards of Canadian law. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on this clause. I am amazed that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) would support a clause like this. He and I, as are many other Members of Parliament, are supporters of the State of Israel and the people of Israel. I do not believe that the Solicitor General will be Solicitor General for very long. The security service and another Solicitor General could interpret much of the activity carried on in support of the State of Israel as being subversive. They could therefore begin to interfere, through monitoring, wiretapping and surveillance, with most of the Jewish organizations which support the State of Israel.
I will demonstrate that what I am saying is not far-fetched by quoting a few paragraphs from the brief submitted by the Canadian Council of Churches. Its membership includes virtually all the major churches in Canada, such as the Anglican Church, the Baptist Convention, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Canada. About this Bill, and particularly about this clause, they said:
We submit that the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" is vague and uncertain and hence excessively broad in effect. Our submission is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would construe lawful church activities, for example in mission work, and/or lawful church and community activities, including development education, peace advocacy and human rights defence, as falling within these definitions, and hence to determine previously lawful activities as threats to the security of Canada.
What is happening in the Middle East, Mr. Speaker? The Government of the State of Israel has encouraged the settlement of Jewish people on the West Bank. This has created a great deal of hostility on the part of the Arab people. Unfortunately there have been terrorist activities on both sides. As the Canadian Council of Churches has pointed out, there is no doubt that a security service and a different Solicitor General could decide that support for either side in the Middle East may lead to terrorist activities and therefore should be kept under surveillance. The Minister is in fact agreeing to this as it is certainly a possibility when he is gone.
The World Council of Churches was headed for many years by the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Archbishop Scott. The Council collected money and transmitted it to the African National Council. Important church leaders in the United States and other countries accused the World Council of Churches of funding organized terrorist activities against the present Government of South Africa. Given the powers that the security service has under this Bill, they could infiltrate affiliates of the World Council of Churches. They could wiretap the telephones, break in and photocopy the mail, or get the membership lists. All of this is permissible under this Bill. That is what this Solicitor General advocates. That is the kind of power he wants to give to the security service.
Until a very short time ago Argentina had a military dictatorship. I am sure that there were refugees from that dictatorship, Argentine citizens and people sympathetic to
June 18, 1984

democracy who were working against the military regime in Argentina. We know the kind of things which the security has done. We know of the surveillance which they kept on organizations which disagreed with policies of Canadian Governments. We know of the way in which they infiltrated the peace organizations which are opposed to the spead of nuclear arms. We know how they stole the membership lists of the Parti Quebecois, which is a legitimate democratic Party. Argentina now has a democratic government but Chile still has a military dictatorship. Can the Minister assure us that if groups contribute money to organizations fighting the present military regime in Chile, the security service will not infiltrate, investigate and harass those organizations? Even if the Minister could give us those assurances, of what worth would they be when we know of the kind of activities the security service carried on in the past?
We have differences of opinion about Nicaragua and El Salvador. I suppose the security service would say that the people opposed to the Nicaraguan regime, which is backed by the CIA, are okay and should not be bothered. I wonder what the security service would say about the opposition to the Nicaraguan regime led by the former leader of the Sandinis-tas, Mr. Pastora, who recently almost lost his life in an assasination attempt. The assassin was probably someone associated with the CIA. Would our security service believe that he is a subversive because he does not get along with the CIA? If we believe in the right of people who hold minority views to express their opinions about being harassed or investigated by the security service, then we must limit the ability of the security service to do those things.
I will close by saying that I think the Minister owes a responsibility to the Jewish community, among others, to guarantee that they are not going to be investigated. They may not realize the difficulties which they may have. However, I suggest to the Minister that they have no more right to feel that they will not be spied upon than all the other groups who have been spied upon until now. We know how the student groups which expressed early opposition to nuclear arms were investigated. We know how Operation Dismantle has been watched by the security service. We know that those who oppose the Cruise missile have been spied upon by the security service. We do not believe that those are legitimate activities. We do not believe that they are necessary or should take place in a democratic society.
We say that the Government does not really believe in democracy if it condones and legalizes all those activities which the McDonald Commission pointed out so clearly were illegal and improper when they were carried out. The Government will now make these activities permissible by law.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of those who are watching or those who may read these debates, it should be recorded that we are presently at report stage of this Bill after a number of weeks of consideration of its clauses in the committee. The motion in the name
Security Intelligence Service
of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) simply states that Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 2. What is Clause 2?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) would not want inadvertently to mislead those who are following this debate with care and would want the record to show clearly that we are not just debating Motion No. 2 but that we are debating Motion No. 5, which in fact was moved by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, as well as Motions Nos. 6 through 9. These are all in addition to Motion No. 2.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I suspect that the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) was posing a rhetorical question.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's intervention but I was getting to the point that he was covering. Essentially, the motion in the name of my hon. friend for Burnaby is that Clause 2 of the Bill presently before us be deleted. As my friend pointed out, there are several other motions which would deal with amendments to that clause, but I want to refer specifically to Clause 2 because it is important that the Canadian public know what Clause 2 of the Bill is. The fact is that trying to follow a procedural argument in the House is extremely difficult.
Clause 2 of the Bill defines what are threats to the security of Canada. The definition begins: "threats to the security of Canada mean . .." and is followed by four extremely important paragraphs, (a), (b), (c) and (d). Those paragraphs are important because they are the trigger mechanism which permits the security service to conduct its investigations and to collect information.
During the weeks of committee hearings witnesses who appeared there stated that these four paragraphs could be better drafted so as to constrain more exactly the appropriate activities of the security service. It is important to realize that despite those suggestions and the amendments which the Progressive Conservative Party put in the House and to the committee to accomplish that, the ruling of the Chair was that those amendments cannot be put at all at report stage. As Your Honour knows, the consequence of that ruling is that some other amendments can be put but none dealing with these four paragraphs that were put by the Conservative Party can be put. Of course, it is not my purpose to reargue why they were ruled out but it is very important that the public know that those amendments to Clause 2 which were moved in my name have in fact been ruled out.
It is also important that the public realize that the majority of witnesses that came to the committee were gravely concerned about these four subparagraphs that define threats to security and trigger what the security service can and cannot do. During second reading debate on this Bill, the Government implied that once the Bill got to committee the Government would listen carefully to any proposals to improve the Bill. The public should know that the Government did not in fact listen,

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
and with respect to Clause 2 concerning the definition of threats to security of Canada, did not accept any amendments.
The question which this raises is: What does this do to the process? When a government indicates that suggestions to improve the legislation made at committee will be seriously considered, one should be able to accept it at its word. The fact of the matter is that recent events have shown that the Government had no intention of changing one word of any of these definitions despite the fact that eminent lawyers and knowledgeable people in the field of civil rights in Canada came before the committee and made suggestions for change.
Let me address another aspect of this Bill. It is very easy for some Government Members to leave the impression that anyone who criticizes the Bill is in some way against having a security service in this country. That is not so. When questioning the many witnesses who came before the committee, I was very careful to determine whether their criticisms went as far as saying there ought not to be a security service at all. Not once did any of those critics who came before the committee go that far. There has been a security service for many years. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) agreed in committee that it has been doing its job competently, effectively and in a manner which would meet the proper sensibilities of the Canadian public. The question is not whether there ought to be a security service but whether this legislative mandate which has been presented to the House is as good as it could or should be in terms of putting the appropriate constraints on any security service for which this Bill clearly provides wide power.
I believe it was my obligation earlier today to rise in place of an Hon. Member from the Government side who unfortunately was unable to be in his seat. He is the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), a former Solicitor General of Canada, who moved Motion No. 5. That motion incorporates some fo the suggestions which were contained in the amendments that the Progressive Conservative Party put forward. What the Member is trying to achieve in that amendment is a more exact definition of threats to the security of Canada. He sets a number of them out. The concerns in this interpretation clause are very real. For instance, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, at page 3 of the brief, filed by the Attorney General of Saskatchewan before the committee, said this about this definition clause:
The phrase "detrimental to the interests of Canada" is wide enough to include economic espionage and any other espionage that could be construed as detrimental to our interests and should be limited to the "national security interests of Canada".
That is the essence of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. These definition clauses are vital in the Act and they should be more carefully worked in order to establish more appropriate constraints on the security service.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, this collection of amendments to which we are directing our attention now are, to my way of thinking, the very pith and
substance of this Bill. You will pardon the apparent irrelevance, but it is not irrelevant if we look at Clause 12 of the Bill where we find that the duties and functions of the service being proposed are "to collect, investigate, analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may, on reasonable grounds, be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada". This is the duty, the function, and the role of the proposed intelligence service. In order to combat the threats to the security of Canada. Naturally at this stage, that is, in Clause 12, it will not be possible to define what those threats are. Therefore, and as is normal in legislation, the definition clause comes early in the Bill.
We are at the present time looking at the definition of "threats to the security of Canada". We have before us a collection of amendments which are being grouped for debate, the first one being in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that Clause 2 be eliminated. That is patently nonsense unless he just wants to eviscerate the Bill and eliminate its whole purpose.
There is some cause to examine the existence of the Security Intelligence agency as it is now and to decide whether it is working properly and is being properly administered and responsible to any of the Ministers of Government. That part of it rather suggests to me that Motion No. 2 proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby is a bit of a nonsense motion, if I may be allowed to say so, because the Hon. Member eliminates entirely the various definitions so essential to understanding what this Bill is about, in particular the threat to the security of Canada, to which I have referred, which appears later in the Bill in Clause 12. If the Bill is to have any meaning at all, if it is to be accepted at all, it is obvious that there have to be definitions. We have to know the duties the agency is charged to perform. Therefore, this section is essential. Essential is almost too weak a word to emphasize the importance of this clause with regard to threats to the security of Canada.
I have before me Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), proposed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) in the absence of the former. I am not entirely in agreement with the suggested amendment even though the proponent of that amendment has been, at a certain stage in his career, the Solicitor General. I cannot, for example, understand why he should abbreviate paragraph (a) of that definition-threats to the security of Canada. I do not think it will be improved by being curtailed. The shorter version which is proposed here is that threat means espionage and sabotage directed against Canada. The original version read:
(a)	espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
There are components of that paragraph (a) which I contend deserve a place in any definition of threats to the security of Canada, particularly the latter part, "or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage".
June 18, 1984

In the next amendment, paragraph (b), the Hon. Member proposes the words, "foreign activities within Canada". I do not think the Hon. Member has improved the language, the significance, the meaning of paragraph (b) in the original Bill, that is, "foreign influenced activites." The amendment reads, "foreign activities".
Some of these activities may be foreign, some of them foreign influenced, some of them may be foreign inspired, and some of them may be natively inspired, coming out of the substance of Canadian thoughtfulness but directed toward subversion and harmful to the vital national interests of Canada. I do not think that is an improvement on the paragraph where it reads:
-the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
Involving a threat to any person, I suppose, is looking at terrorism, but the whole thing is all mixed up, Mr. Speaker. It is not just activities designed to pull down the institutional structures of Canada. That is one aspect of it. There is another aspect, the terroristic aspect involving persons. What about the pursuit of persons? That is contained somewhat in the original paragraph (b). I believe that the notions there ought to be properly filtered out, clarified and assigned their proper role, not just jumbled together. That is really my criticism of the definitions as they stand in Bill C-9. The motions are jumbled together and are not clearly set out. That will not help-and I am directing my words to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) who is listening-nor will it assist any security intelligence agency if its functions and the notions that define those functions are jumbled.
I plead with the Minister to accept some redefinition and clarification of the threats to the security of Canada as outlined in the definition clause of the Bill.
I cannot quite understand the technique of the Hon. Member for Burnaby. His Motion No. 2, which is one of those we are talking about, deletes this clause. Then his Motion No. 6 deletes certain sections of the threats to the security of Canada, and his Motion No. 7 deletes certain other sections of the threats to the security of Canada. I think he was attempting to have a number of amendments in his own name by dealing with paragraph after paragraph after paragraph. At the same time he suggested that the whole clause should be deleted. I do not know what he wants to do in proceeding in this manner. I wonder whether he knows. If one clause is eliminated, then it goes. Perhaps he thought half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. However, at the same time I feel that he is suggesting an unusual procedure. First he suggested that we should eliminate the whole thing and, if we could not do that, we should eliminate one portion of it and then another portion of it.
[DOT] (BIO)
It would have been much better for him to examine the notion of the threats to the security of Canada. He could have clarified them, as he can clarify them; he has a fairly good thinking mind. He should have clarified them, sorted them out
Security Intelligence Service
and unmuddled them. Then he would have rendered a much greater service to the parliamentary process.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to speak on the motions relating to Bill C-9 which are now before the House, those motions being Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 that were grouped for voting. Despite the claptrap which were hear from the government side, it is not the intention of anyone in the House to not have a security service in Canada.
What we are trying to get across to the Canadian public is that the Government is not supported in many of the definitions and clauses in this Bill. To date, either in committee or in the House, either publicly or anywhere else, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has not taken the time to put evidence before the people of Canada or before us as to why he is seeking the kind of legislation he is obviously seeking. The Solicitor General has not come forward, nor has any Government Member, with a supporting list of Canadians who would like to see the legislation brought forward, particularly containing Clause 2. That clause goes much further than Canadian tradition or Canadian law would demonstrate is required. Interestingly enough, it is not supportable in terms of the great republic to the south of us and the studies which it has conducted through its general accounting office, Congress and Senate in looking at the operations of the CIA. In fact, they are going in exactly the opposite direction, in terms of definitions and activities, to what the present Solicitor General of Canada is trying to do.
The Solicitor General is trying to bring in a definition of threats to the security of Canada which is so broad that it would include-and I am humble in having to tell you this- yourself, Mr. Speaker. The definition is so broad that certain activities in which you are involved, Mr. Speaker, such as going to church, could perhaps be considered under the very broad rubric of the definition used by the Solicitor General as requiring the security service to have to go out and target.
I was glad to see that some of the Tories were finally rising to speak on Bill C-9. Certainly they have said in British Columbia that they are opposed to this legislation, but they do not demonstrate that very sincerely in the House or in committee. The point which must be made in terms of Clause 2 is the concern of major groups in Canadian society. I am referring to those groups concerned about civil liberties and human rights and about the proper role of dissent in Canadian society. What are they saying, groups such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council of Churches and so on? I will deal with them in a few moments.
I suppose Clause 2 as proposed by the Solicitor General is supported by some Liberals. When they find out what the electorate thinks about it, I am sure they will cut themselves loose of Bill C-9 as fast as they can, particularly this clause. The clause allows for the targeting of responsible groups or individuals who happen to work on issues inside or outside Canada that have political objectives. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand) was unable to be here, so the opposition Party had to

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
put forward his motions. Despite what he would hope to do, it went some distance. As a former Solicitor General of Canada, he is far more widely supported by civil libertarians than the present Solicitor General.
There is a mood among many Canadians involved in church groups which are trying to provide legitimate help and care for refugee groups, particularly political refugees and so on, or even in commercial activities, that the intention of the clause is so broad that the Solicitor General or the Government will be allowed to use it in a very political way. Groups such as the PQ in the Province of Quebec have a legitimate right to be disturbed about this clause. Despite the fact that there was obviously a political hand involved in getting the RCMP security service to steal its membership list and in activities ranging from the burning of barns, to breaking into people's homes, to stealing things, kidnapping, forgery, fraud and assault, there has been no justice.
Where has the justice been in terms of our existing security service? The present Solicitor General has never demonstrated any particular backbone in bringing those criminals within the security service to justice. I think Canadians expect it. If he would have come in with a clean slate and said that he would set right what Mr. Justice David Macdonald felt was wrong in terms of the existing system and situation, then there would have been a greater mood in the Canadian electorate to say that the man and his Party were demonstrating the integrity required to bring in a security service with powers that are really required. Instead, the Solicitor General brought in a truly Draconian Bill, going in exactly the opposite direction to that of the CIA, which has for many years been out of control in the great republic south of us.
Who could be targeted? I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that you could be. Let us take a look at who else might come under the definitions proposed by the Solicitor General, who, I am quite confident, will not be the Solicitor General at the end of this week.
On page 13 of the brief of the Canadian Council of Churches, paragraph 42 reads:
We submit that the definition of threats to the security of Canada is vague and uncertain and hence excessively broad in effect.
Why would the Solicitor General not take that advice? Why does he piously sit in the House of Commons and say that the NDP and the Official Opposition are just stalling?
We will do more than stall. We will ensure that the Bill is changed. The Solicitor General might think he will be able to jam it through the House of Commons, but we can put up speakers on every clause and make sure that he will ultimately have to start accepting some changes to the Bill. It will not be passed into law while New Democratic Party members are sitting in the House.
In paragraph 43 it goes on to indicate:
We are particularly concerned about the effect of broad interpretation of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 2. Our submission is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service could construe lawful church activities, for example in mission work, and/or lawful church and community activities, including development education, peace advocacy and human rights defence as falling
within these definitions, and hence to determine previously lawful activities as threats to the security of Canada.
What would happen to these church groups under the "shall" clause which the Minister slipped into Bill C-9? They would have their mail opened and be subject to all kinds of intrusive techniques.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has a problem. Is the Hon. Member confining his remarks to the particular clauses grouped for debate? He appears to be ranging outside this particular group of clauses.


James Ross Fulton: I am dealing specifically with Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Motion No. 2 seeks to delete Clause 2 and the other motions seek to eliminate parts of the clause. The part proposed on the government side actually amends those clauses. I am sticking to those clauses. However, I want Canadians to know what happens if they are defined or identified under this very broad rubric definition of a security threat to Canada.
What happens under the "shall" clauses of the Bill is that they will have their mail opened, telephones bugged, medical or work records seized and on and on. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association in its brief to the committee on this clause, the delegation at that time being composed of Mr. Borovoy and Mr. Swan, the general counsel and vice-president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, took a very close look at this clause and said the following:
-the Bill would make such intrusive surveillance available for "activities" . .. intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada". When ultimate intentions become the operative threshold, there is a great danger that speculation rather than evidence would be at a premium. What indeed would constitute acceptable evidence of an ultimate intention? Can the word "ultimately" deal with any point between now and the end of time? The more speculative the exercise becomes, the greater the risk of intruding on completely lawful behaviour.
Having come from the court system, having been a probation and parole officer and being the only elected peace officer in this House, I can state what kind of powers the present Solicitor General would be proposing if he were to apply the same principles he wants in Bill C-9 to the Parole Act of this country. We already have the second highest rate of incarceration in the western world. We are already a very punitive society.
What we have within our system of justice in Canada is a balancing act. We have a defence and we have Crown counsel. In Parliament we have the government side and the opposition side. The Minister is proposing a piece of legislation that is so highly politically motivated, so highly open to political manipulation that no one in our society who may simply want to dissent about anything could be certain that Big Brother's eye would not come upon them. If they became a political thorn in the side of the present Solicitor General, you can be darn sure that he or someone of that ilk will invoke some part of Bill C-9 and have them brought under some kind of intrusive techniques. Ultimately, completely honest, open, law-
June 18, 1984

abiding Canadians would find themselves before the courts and in jail as a result of some activities in which they were legitimately involved, and the harassment potential of Bill C-9 would simply be used to muzzle them. On behalf of all Canadians, I will fight Bill C-9 and this clause until the end of time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise this afternoon to make some comments on the second motion before the House on Bill C-9. The general thrust of the motion is that Clause 2 be deleted from the Bill. Consider the reasons for that. We are talking about the clause in the Bill that is perhaps the most important of all. It attempts to identify all the interpretations of the very critical terms included in various parts of the Bill.
When you look at what this means, I am afraid that our Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) begins to make Ronald Reagan look like some kind of a bleeding heart. For example, Clause 2 talks about foreign influenced activities. Numerous church groups, priests and ministers from a variety of churches throughout my constituency have studied this Bill and the implications thereof. Like many other Canadian humanitarian organizations, churches maintain a variety of very direct links with colleague agencies in other countries through development assistance grants of one kind or another, through church and seminary support organizations, through various human rights documentation and advocacy groups, through ecumenical exchange of personnel from one part of the world to another, and through assistance to general refugee groups and various relief organizations and activities around the world.
Furthermore, the graduates of mission-related schools, associate and partner churches and agencies, may rise quite conceivably to positions in the political or economic life of a variety of these countries. In the world-wide church family, there is a great deal of exchange and collaboration, hence a good portion of the day-to-day life and work of Canadian churches and church organizations and agencies could be held to be foreign influenced. Of course, that relates directly to Clause 3(b) referring to foreign-influenced activities.
The point is that when talking about foreign-influenced activities, we include the groups that are indeed engaging in some type of dissent. Now this dissenting group could be called a group of subversives. It could be identified as a group carrying out some kind of subversion. We in the New Democratic Party have had some real concerns expressed to us by church and religious groups, peace groups, trade unions and various community organizations. They feel that mission work abroad, development education and the various peace advocacy groups could all be determined to be some kind of subversive activity led by a subversive group. This causes us concern. When the Solicitor General hears of all of these concerns, I really wonder why he does not stand in his place and react to them.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why did you not bother to come to committee?
Security Intelligence Service


Nelson Andrew Riis: I wonder why he does not comment on them. After all, report stage is the point for us to raise concerns and perhaps hear some explanations from the government side. The government benches are mute on these concerns. I hope that eventually the Solicitor General and some of his colleagues will rise in their places and comment.
I am concerned about the need to incorporate in Clause 2 the terms "espionage" and "sabotage". Espionage is already defined in Section 46(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. It is an offence in criminal law today. Why does it have to be in this Bill along with the word "sabotage" which is defined in Section 52 of the Criminal Code and can be dealt with adequately in that area? A whole list of these various terms are involved. Their purpose is anything but clear.
I now move away from the concerns I have for the terms espionage and sabotage to the next subclause, which is again much too wide. It is very open and vague. Let me give an example of how this is a concern to me. It reads:
(b)	foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
I want to refer to the Crown corporation Petro-Canada. Frequently parliamentarians rise to condemn Petro-Canada as some kind of subversive corporation. They say it was introduced by the Government not in the best interest of Canada, not in the best interests of energy security or developing self-sufficiency in a very critical resource called petroleum. Are we not hearing Members of Parliament in a sense carrying on subversive activities that incite people to move against the decision of the Government? Oil company presidents, vicepresidents and chief executive officers condemn Petro-Canada as something that is working against the national interest, whose mandate is against the best interest of Canada. By this Bill, these executive officers and other executive members of Canadian and foreign-owned companies could be identified as urging activities that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and could be defined as being clandestine, deceptive or involving a threat to the country or to Canadian persons. Basically what this Bill is saying is that those kinds of individuals including parliamentarians could be identified as carrying on foreign-influenced activities within and relating to Canada.
I would like to raise a concern that was brought to the attention of the committee by a group of Canadian physicians who found themselves involved in examining patients whose injuries were the results of torture in their home countries. These patients were seeking refugee status in Canada and had gone to members of the medical profession to have evidence of their torture verified and documented in order to make the case that to send them back to Chile or whatever country was involved would certainly not be in their best interests because, upon returning home, they would likely be imprisoned, shot or tortured further.

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
The doctors involved have now become concerned because the results of these examinations have been used within Canada by Canadians opposed to foreign Governments and by groups that are perceived by some to advocate the threat or the use of acts of violence for the purpose of achieving a political objective within some foreign country. Indeed, some of these physicians are actual members of organizations that donate funds and goods to opposition groups in foreign states that defend themselves in violent confrontations with governments in the pursuit of democracy and freedom. In their own words, the activities of these physicians are certainly directed toward opposition groups which are trying to obtain and achieve a political objective in foreign countries. These physicians would fall squarely under the definition of "threats to the security of Canada".
One could list a whole number of groups and individuals who are genuinely concerned about the pursuit of democracy in other countries and who are genuinely concerned about assisting the various groups that are attempting to achieve open and free countries. By the definitions we see before us in Clause 2 of Bill C-9, these people could then be identified as individuals who must be spied upon, whose telephones must be tapped, whose offices must be broken into and whose files, both public and private, must be opened up to ensure that they are operating in the best interests of Canada.
In rather simplistic words, that is why we feel that this clause must be deleted in its entirety and why we feel that it is important that the Government take action and delete this clause. I would encourage the Solicitor General to explain at least why the Government is ignoring the various concerns that Hon. Members have put before it and why it wants to proceed with the Bill with Clause 2 in its present form.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) might be considered frivolous by some. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, what alternatives exist for an Opposition which has had its amendments dealing with this very important Clause 2 and related clauses struck out? What alternatives are available to an Opposition that wants to see an intelligence service well established with reasonable, well defined and responsible terms of power and authority? The situation before us then is an extreme situation. It must be so because there are no alternatives for an Opposition in the House today.
Bill C-9 offers the intelligence service powers and guidelines which are far too broad and far too vague. Many witnesses who appeared before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee were quick to point this out. In response, the Government said that we must trust it. We must trust this Government after experiencing its 16 years of abuse? Perhaps the Government was not prepared to listen to the testimony of those witnesses who appeared before the committee. However, we on the opposition side were required to listen to those witnesses and were required to go home and speak to our constituents. We are well aware of how the Canadian public feels about Bill C-9. The thrust of that Bill is clearly wrong.
We on this side of the House recognize the seriousness of the amendment that has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Clause 2 goes to the very heart of the Bill. It is the definition clause and relates to several other matters as well. Within the definition clause is the definition which concerned practically all of the people of Canada, and that is, the definition of what in fact does constitute a threat to the security of Canada. When a Party puts forward an amendment seeking to narrow and to define that definition more clearly and that amendment is rejected, then we must take this extreme measure which I now support and approve.
Canadians have a good idea about what is meant by subversion. Our idea may be shaped by a cloak and dagger film shot against a background of foggy darkness. However, we know subversion when we see it and we know subversion when we hear of it. Subversion consists of more than an academic discussion which may take place around a kitchen table or in a church basement, whether it deals with the Cruise missile or any other matters of concern and interest to Canadians generally.
The view of subversion in this legislation is that subversion could be just about anything including those discussions to which I have already referred. Threats to our security are whatever the civilian Security Intelligence Service decides are threats. For example, part of Clause 2 reads:
-"threats to the security of Canada" means . . .
(c)	activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state,-
That is a pretty broad definition, Mr. Speaker. The definition does carry on to exclude lawful advocacy, protest or dissent unless that lawful advocacy, protest or dissent is carried on in conjunction with the wrong activities referred to earlier. At first glance, one might conclude that the exclusion of lawful advocacy, protest or dissent resolves the matter. However, the real key question is who will determine what is meant by the words "in conjunction with".
Who is to say that the activities of a group of people in my church basement who are discussing the testing of the Cruise missile consist of no more than an intelligent and constructive conservation or that it is something more than that? What would happen then? An informer would be placed in their midst or some electronic means of bugging would be established or the telephones of those persons who took part in that discussion would be tapped. There is clearly no doubt that an academic discussion would not be in breach of the Act, but the fact that it was only an academic discussion would only be determined after a good deal of surveillance and supervision. That amounts to a testing of the credibility of the Canadian people before they are finally acquitted for having had those peaceful academic discussions. It is quite another question to make a judgment call as to whether or not such a discussion could be linked with something more serious.
The Government still argues that we should trust it. The Government argues that we need not fear the occurrence of fishing expeditions. It says that it is above that. I would argue
June 18, 1984

that fishing expeditions will be inevitable if the definition clause of this Bill is allowed to pass. It is the opinion of the Government that undoubtedly it will pass. However, we cannot forget that Clause 2 relates as well, to efforts within Canada to achieve political objectives in foreign states.
Every night on the news we watch acts of violence in other lands. Does support in Canada for the Solidarity movement, the Sandinistas, the Israelis, the Palestinians, or any of the dozens of trouble spots, or for the Canadians involved in those trouble spots around the world, make that people subject to surveillance by the intelligence service or a threat to the security of Canada? According to Clause 2, it will. There is no denying the acts of serious violence which are taking place in the far corners of the world. I regret that. I also regret the fact that the Bill which is before us does not make clear when I as a Canadian will be involved in that threat and how far I would have to be involved in support of another faction before I am subject to this Bill.
I regret that my time is drawing nigh to the end of the ten minute comment. Clause 2 is one of the most important clauses in the entire Bill. It is the heart, the crux, the definition clause. It will be the clause referred to when the civilian Security Intelligence Service is attempting to decide whether or not a Canadian has infringed or will infringe upon the civil liberties of Canadians. For this reason, the sloppy workmanship in the drafting of the Bill, it should be subject to repeal and redrafting. In lieu of that, it should be disposed of by the approval of this motion.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I think that "pleased" is the wrong word to use when one addresses his or her feelings with respect to participating in a debate on a subject such as the one which is before us today. However, I am pleased to support the amendments to Clause 2 which were proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). In addressing Clause 2 there are a few things which I would like to say in the few moments which are available to me.
In reading Clause 2 of Bill C-9,1 must again draw attention to some of the verbiage within the existing clause which deals with definitions it reads as follows:
"threats to the security of Canada" means
(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
The phrase "detrimental to the interests of Canada", in its various contexts, as it appears within the clause, is so wide that it has brought forth a number of vigorous objections from groups as varied as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Council of Churches.
Subclause (b) reads:
-foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
Security Intelligence Service
There are so many "ors" in that subclause that each could be taken independently. It is not "and". It does not have to be a definition pursued by the new Canadian Security Intelligence Service that includes all of those things within any one of those clauses. Any one of the "ors" will do.
Finally, subclause (c) reads as follows:
-activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state,
If we delete some of the "ors" we can have the clause read: "(c) activities within Canada in support of a threat of violence against property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within a foreign state". It is when we reach the kind of meaning which is implicit in that clause that we begin to get more than a little concerned. The power to define threats to national security is so broad that it is incumbent upon us to consider the mind of the Government and the mind of the security service which it will set up.
We are not considering previous faults. The RCMP has many good points, but it also has faults. This Bill, in part, has arisen out of concern regarding those faults, particularly the faults which were evident in the early 1970s. We must be concerned with the state of mind of the Government and of an agency which will be empowered, at least in the initial stage, to make definitions and to carry out various surreptitious and clandestine activities.
I find it more than a little disturbing that the report of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), which covered the activities of the last year, indicated that some 545 electronic surveillance warrants for national security purposes were issued within Canada. I am particularly concerned that there were only 699 other applications for authorization to wiretap by the RCMP for all other purposes. Some 44 per cent of wiretap authorizations in Canada last year were for "national security reasons". I do not mean to downgrade the importance of this nation, but when 44 per cent of authorized wiretaps are for national security reasons-even within a subagency of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which has more important things to do as far as the public is concerned-what are we likely to see in terms of intelligence activity, wiretaps, surveillance and opening of mail once the bureaucratic imperative comes into play and we have an agency whose sole raison d'etre is security and intelligence? At least 90 per cent of the Canadians whom I am acquainted with have not placed those kinds of issues at the top of their agenda. To have a separate agency which has as its sole reason national security and intelligence, and given the record when it is a minor department of a larger agency, I really fear the direction in which we are going.
I have a number of signatures on petitions from my constituents which relate exactly to those concerns which my colleagues and I have been discussing today and to concerns which have been discussed earlier with respect to this Bill. My constituents are very worried about the grave possibility which I have indicated. As I said, we must address the state of mind of the Government.

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
One of the things which we must consider is the extraordinary ruling by the chairman of the committee. He indicated that he would resign, following the process which was undertaken in relation to Bill C-9, in order to avoid the future work of that committee being tainted by the processes which were undertaken by himself and by the Government. Why the unseemly haste? They are willing to throw all traditions and all regular workings aside. They admit themselves that what they are undertaking with this Bill has very serious implications. They are using a ramrod and a railroad in attempting to push the legislation through committee and through the House more than is normal for many of the pieces of legislation which have a much higher priority rating with the people of Canada.
This is essentially the same Government that in 1970 thought that four kids with guns who ran around in a car meant a state of apprehended insurrection. Someone was murdered, but murders are committed every month in this country. However, when four kids with guns ran around in a car it was considered to be a state of revolution and enough to suspend civil liberties for hundreds, thousands and millions of Canadians. What kind of confidence does that give us in the way the Government will interpret its enforcement, and its agencies' enforcement of this Act? Perhaps we should be asking, Mr. Speaker, what the state of mind is of its new Prime Minister designate? Does John Turner agree with those people across the way who are setting up a separate spy agency, a separate security intelligence agency in Bill C-9, which has a greater priority than the passage, for instance, of Bill C-34, which could help to protect the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of working Canadians? What is his priority? Is spying more important than workers' lives? Is that the priority of the new Prime Minister designate? We ought to ask him that question and let him make the choice. These people, that Minister and other Ministers, may not be around very long for one reason or another, and before we are asked to do something as extraordinary as pursuing this kind of agency, particularly with the very broad and dangerous generalizations which are included in this particular clause, we ought to ask ourselves what the priority is of this government and what is its state of mind. Is justice more important than spying on fellow Canadians? Just where does the Government stand? I hope that one of those Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, will answer.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Motion No. 2 which moves to delete Clause 2 of this Bill. In this connection, I would like to say a word of appreciation to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for his effort. All the members of our caucus have greatly appreciated the hard and dedicated work which has been done. We appreciate the plaudit of the justice critic of the Tory Party. If he had been a little more active, we would perhaps have seen some more changes brought in which are necessary. However, we do appreciate the work of the Hon. Member for Burnaby.
In moving to delete Clause 2 we are especially concerned about the definition of "threats to the security of Canada". As had been remarked, not only by different Hon. Members speaking in this Chamber but by many of the witnesses who have appeared before the committee, these definitions are much too broad and loose. That broadness and looseness constitutes a very real danger to the civil liberties of the people of Canada. That is why we are opposed to this Bill. Really, when one looks at these definitions, one sees the way in which this Bill opens up to abuse by the proposed civilian security service the basic rights and freedoms which Canadians had taken for granted until the 1970s when the extent to which these rights had been subverted by members of the security service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were revealed. When we look at the definition of "threats to the security of Canada", we should pay special attention to the definition in paragraph (b) which states:
... foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,...
The phrase, Mr. Speaker, " . . . detrimental to the interests of Canada ..." is a very vague phrase. We would be interested in knowing just precisely what the Government means by it. Does it mean, for example, someone who opposes the sale of Candu nuclear reactors to other countries? Certainly this Government has planned a fair amount of its economic program on the sale of those reactors. Because it has been such a flop, this Government has suffered. Would opposition to the sale of those reactors be detrimental to the interests of Canada? In my previous work, Mr. Speaker, as clergyman with the United Church of Canada, I was very active in such movements as "Ten Days for World Development", which was concerned with the needs of people in Third World countries and the kinds of oppression which are faced by many of those people. There is concern expressed by the Canadian Council of Churches about the way in which this proposed definition can affect that kind of work within my church and within other churches. In the brief submitted by the Canadian Council of Churches, it is stated:
With regard to section 2(a) and (b) we are concerned with the vague phrase "the interests of Canada". What are the legitimate "interests of Canada"? Who defines these "interests"? Are the "interests of Canada" distinguishable from the interests of the citizens of Canada? Could there be a legitimate conflict among the citizens of Canada as to just what Canada's "interests" are?
With regard to paragraph (b) for example: consider that a visiting foreign finance minister, from a country where churches have carried on mission work for many years, requests a private meeting with Canadian church officials, in Canada, to discuss Canadian aid and trade policies. He wishes to decrease his country's dependence on Canadian exports, while maintaining or increasing Canadian aid to his country. He enlists the assistance and advice of his Canadian friends. This meeting could be construed as "foreign-influenced", given long relations between his government and church agencies in his country and with Canadian churches. It may be "detrimental to the interests of Canada" if its objective is decreasing Canadian sales in his country. Because the meeting is private and confidential it could fall within the definition of "clandestine", there being no definition of that term within Bill C-9 itself. Presumably the meeting might also be "deceptive", for instance if the visitor had told Canadian state officials that he wished to meet with the churches to discuss the construction of a church-sponsored hospital. The activity is clearly "within Canada". Even though we would understand this meeting to be a lawful activity, the participants are potentially targets for surveillance by the Security Service.
June 18, 1984

It is that kind of concern, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Council of Churches has. It is that kind of concern which is held by our Party and by many other groups which came before the committee. The definition of "threats to the security of Canada" is much too broad. Who decides what the legitimate interests of Canada are? It is not even going to be the Liberal majority in the House of Commons which decides, because it does not have to come before it for that kind of definition. Perhaps it could be some member of Cabinet or perhaps some overzealous member of the proposed security service itself who decides. It is worthwhile noting that in testimony, the Minister admitted that the great majority of the proposed members of the security service would come from the secret service of the RCMP, the very people who were involved, along with Hon. Members of the Government, in the kind of illegal activity which took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s, for which justice has not yet been done. The Canadian people want to see some action taken to assure them that their civil liberties and their human rights will take a higher place in courts of law than the Government's priorities, whatever they might be. We are concerned that the vague definitions in this Bill can target peace activists and people who are concerned about Central America or South Africa. They can be targeted with all the kinds of intrusive devices which this Bill is offering. We are concerned that this Bill and this clause open very wide the door to very great government intrusion into the lives and activities of ordinary Canadians and respectable Canadian organizations. We do not have the kind of checks and balances in this legislation which we would have liked to have seen.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Burnaby to delete Clause 2. I hope that all Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognize the wisdom of what we are saying and move with us to delete this clause.
[DOT] (MOO)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the bicentennial anniversary of the Province of New Brunswick. In 1784 the British Government divided Nova Scotia, as it then was, and created a separate Province of New Brunswick. In 1867 New Brunswick became a founding province of Canada. Today the province stands as a memorial to all the people who contributed to its development. New Brunswick has a multicultural heritage enriched by our native people, Empire Loyalists, Acadians, people from the British Isles, Europe, Asia, Africa, the United States of America, indeed, from all parts of the world.
Today a special stamp will commemorate the occasion. It will be unveiled in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. All year, and every year, Canada's picture province will welcome our fellow Canadians and visitors from around the world to share in our hospitality and the warm New Brunswick welcome that awaits them.



FINANCE


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the following letter which I recently received from the P.E.I. Women in Support of Agriculture:
Dear Sir:
At the annual meeting of the P.E.I. Women in Support of Agriculture, a resolution was submitted and passed by which we agreed to make our views known to our Members of Parliament on the following subject.
Accordingly we are writing with regard to, and in criticism of the recent changes in the Income Tax Act dealing with child care expenses. More specifically, we take exception to the change which dictates, with few exceptions, that "whichever of you has the lower net income must claim the child care expenses".
Although this discriminates against any working mother, it tends to affect farm families to a greater extent. This is largely true since the farming spouse does quite often have a low net income for several reasons, and therefore must claim the child care expenses yet derive little benefit from this deduction in comparison to the working mother who actually pays the child care expenses.
In conclusion, it is our opinion that the benefits derived from increasing the allowable deduction for child care expenses to $2,000 per child were largely offset by the addition of the "supporting person" concept to the Act, especially as it applies to the agricultural sector.
Trusting that you will give this matter your consideration and take some positive action with regard to the situation.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. Wanda MacMurdo President of the Provincial Women in Support of Agriculture Mrs. Rena Thompson
President of the Charlottetown Area Women in Support of Agriculture
I support their stand, and I urge the Minister to take positive action and change the clause dealing with child care expenses, which discriminate against women, especially women in agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: By agreement, the Chair would like to recognize the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), followed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), and a spokesman from the New Democratic Party.

June 18, 1984
Presence in Gallery HOUSE OF COMMONS



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. JOHN NAPIER TURNER, LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the Hon. John Turner. As you know, over the weekend, in an open and democratic convention, Mr. Turner won the support of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we on this side of the House extend to him our congratulations and our loyalty.
There were six other candidates in the race also, and we extend to them our admiration for well organized campaigns, and for conducting themselves with dedication and dignity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Our choice was endorsed by all of the delegates at the convention as a result of the usual and characteristically generous action taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) in moving a motion of unanimity at the end of the deliberations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I say that Mr. Turner will be no stranger to the House of Commons. During his 14 years in this Chamber he established a solid reputation as a parliamentarian. He has deep respect for the traditions of Parliament, and he is at home in the House of Commons. We look forward to welcoming him back as Prime Minister after the next federal election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that we on this side are ready to go the moment our Leader gives us the word.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I am honoured to rise today to convey our warm congratulations to the Hon. John Turner on his very impressive victory on Saturday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I had the opportunity of doing so in a personal way late Saturday, and I am pleased to do so today, and to convey, having been in that position in another circumstance, a tribute to those who were not successful. It occurred to me, and I know to my colleagues, that losing in those circumstances is never easy. I thought all of the contestants conducted themselves with dignity. I commend all of them on a fine fight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Translation\


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I especially wish to congratulate the Hon. Jean Chretien on the dignity and courage he showed throughout his campaign.

I noted with interest the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). I suppose he was being as consistent today as he was on Saturday. If that were the case, I want to assure my hon. friend that we too are ready, willing, and more than able, to deal with the writ.
I can tell you something extra. Early this morning, with the permission of the Chair, I had the carpenters down here fixing the seat of the Leader of the Opposition for Mr. Turner, because I know he is going to be sitting here for a long time, and I want him to be comfortable.
To Mr. Turner, to Geills, and to the children, we extend our best wishes for health and happiness in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), and speak on behalf of my Leader who is unavoidably absent this afternoon, and my caucus, in welcoming Mr. Turner to the leaderhips of the Liberal Party, and presumably to the post of Prime Minister in the not too distant future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: However, having seen the behaviour here this afternoon, I want to ask him whether he is sure he really wants it.
I would like to say to those who were not successful that I have some knowledge of how it fells. You heal. It takes time. Each of you conducted magnificent campaigns.
I watched with great interest from an unusual vantage point. Having been a politician for most of my adult life, I had always thought that only those of us in political life had to find things to say when there was little left to say, for long periods of time at a stretch. However, I sat among the press over the course of Friday night and Saturday. There were long stretches when little was happening that could usefully be commented upon, except to say that the end result appeared to be inevitable.
I would like to say to Jean Chretien in particular, who is not here, that his campaign carried with it a great deal of emotion which I think many people in the country felt throughout the campaign. His campaign served him well, and will make him a politician in the hearts of Canadians for a long time to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: It will not surprise Mr. Turner to hear me say- and this, of course, is a secret not to be repeated anywhere else-that there were those in the NDP who, in their own self interest were hoping he would win.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is too late, Ian.


Ian Deans: The Deputy Prime Minister says that they are ready to go, and there are those of us who, for the last three years, have been wishing they would. I hope that when Mr. Turner assumes the post of Prime Minister he will move quickly to have the writs issued in order that the question of who should govern Canada may be cleared up once and for all. I will look forward after that to welcoming him into the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. We want to welcome him from the backrooms of the Liberal Party convention where it was rumoured that he was available if necessary, but not necessarily available. In the Province of Alberta the Minister has a reputation as a job destroyer because of his Budgets and his energy program.
On the weekend a consultant of the Department of Manpower and Immigration attended a Canadian Mental Health Association conference. She made some very strong statements about the pathetic plight of young people in the Province of Alberta. There were other consultants from the United States who indicated that, because of the 12 per cent increase in unemployment rates among young people in Alberta, we could expect increased assaults, vandalism, about a 60 per cent increase in suicides, and a 75 per cent increase in mental health breakdowns requiring hospitalization.
In the last two weeks of this Parliament are we going to have action to change the energy program and the transportation program, or are we simply going to have election campaign talk while these young people experience depression, suicide, and all of those things?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I spent the last several days meeting a large number of people from Alberta, including a large number of young Albertans. Far from being pessimistic, they were very optimistic, very sure of themselves, and very confident about the future of the country. They were eager and ready to contribute fully to our country. They were confident
Oral Questions
that their province would indeed again experience excellent days. Obviously these were not young Conservative people who had their noses to the wall and were following the example of their elders as the national complainers and negativists. They were young Liberal people who had confidence in themselves and in the country.
If my friend checks the record he will find that the period in which the city of Calgary had the largest increase in terms of violence and local crime was when the city was at the height of its growth, several years ago. There was a large influx of people into Calgary at that time. That led to very serious local problems. As a matter of fact, while I did not subscribe to this utterance and found it very shocking, I remember a Mayor of Calgary complaining about everyone in Canada being attracted to that city, and complaining about the problems. He must have been a Conservative too.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicates to us that we can solve the crime problem in the country through unemployment. I think that is a rather bizarre statement. However, it is in accord with his view that when you throw people out of work they do not use as much oil and gas, and therefore you can have security of supply and a balanced self-sufficiency picture.


VIEWS ADVANCED BY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Finance read the speeches by the Leader of the Opposition? Does he agree with the Leader of the Opposition that, to help individuals secure more training, we should have a registered training account, an expanded loan program, and better tax deductions to allow people to contribute more money to their own training? Does the Minister of Finance agree that the country needs those kinds of stimuli to help young people in particular to continue their training?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have imposed upon myself the difficult task of reading most of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition. Up to now I have found nothing but rhetoric and generalities in them.
I am glad that the Hon. Member asked what we have done. I remind him of the several hundreds of millions of dollars which we have brought to the Province of Alberta in the last several months in terms of the developments taking place in Cold Lake and Wolf Lake, and the developments which will benefit Saskatchewan and Alberta at Lloydminster, with the heavy oil upgrader. We are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into Alberta and British Columbia through the expansion of the rail transportation system, thanks to the amendments which have been passed through the House, against Tory opposition, in order to change the Crow rate situation. These are things that we have done, rather than the empty rhetoric coming from the other side.
4720

June 18, 1984
Oral Questions


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I do not know who on the Minister's staff is giving him the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition, but ten days ago in Thunder Bay the Leader of the Opposition laid out a program, with six principles and 16 specifics, that deals totally, absolutely, and entirely with the issue of training and what the country needs to do about it. It is now ten days later. If the Minister is reading those speeches, why has he not read that speech, and why does he not have an answer for us about that?


NEEDS OF WESTERN CANADIANS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as a Member from Outremont, which is a high income area, does the Minister believe that he understands what western Canadians need, better than the members of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party who have been sent to this Chamber by the people who live in that region? We say to him that he has been wrong about energy, and wrong about transportation. We want a change, and we want it in the next ten days. Will your new Leader help us get that change within ten days?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the best example of the empty rhetoric that I referred to in my previous answers. I am glad that the Hon. Member is confirming my statement in that regard.
I must tell him that, as Minister of Finance, I am Minister for all Canadians, not any particular region or any particular constituents. I have been in the House for 12 years serving all Canadians, not any particular region or any particular constituency.
I must tell my hon. friend again that, rather than resorting to the empty words of the Leader of the Opposition, we have resorted to action. We passed in this Parliament-again against the footdragging and opposition of the Conservative Opposition-a new National Training Act which has had the support of the provinces and which is the most modern piece of legislation in that area. We have allocated over a billion dollars a year to that, which is by far the largest amount that has ever been allocated in this country for the training of young people and adults, and the retraining of workers.
In addition, we are now providing $6 billion or $7 billion a year to the provinces for post-secondary education, which is more than has ever been spent in this country by the federal Government in the area of post-secondary education. These are firm commitments by this Government to help the young people of the country to be ready to face the rest of this century, and the twenty-first century, well equipped.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. First, I want to commiserate with Mr. Pierre Elliot Turner and the albatrosses
he is discovering that he will have around his neck, as he sits here today in this Chamber. By the way, I congratulate the Minister of Finance for not emulating the Deputy Prime Minister and scuttling across the convention floor like an anxious crab to a dead herring, as the Deputy Minister did.


Mr. Rossi:: What happened to you?


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no good in asking me to come with you; I won't do it.
It has been four months since the Minister's feeble Budget of February 15. The latest Statistics Canada figures on the use of industrial capacity show that we are stalled at about 71.7 per cent use of our industrial capacity, 10 per cent under what it was before the recession. Of course this means that jobs are not being created. There are 120,000 fewer jobs than in mid 1981. Does the Government plan any action now, or do we have to wait even longer than we have waited during this tiresome, preordained convention, for some action? Will something be done to get a grasp on this and begin an economic recovery in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, no doubt Canadians have heard the best news today. It is that the Hon. Member for St. John's West will not rejoin the Liberal Party that he left several years ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: Where did you begin, Marc?


Marc Lalonde: He need fear nothing. We would not welcome him either, so he is all right over there.
I would suggest to my hon. friend that, indeed, we may do something today that would mean action immediately and would help the economy of the country. In approximately 35 minutes, my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, is due to introduce a Ways and Means motion, to introduce all of the amendments to the Income Tax Act that have been considered already by the parliamentary committee and which will mean a very significant reduction in the burden on small business and medium-size business. I invite the Opposition to pass this Bill immediately. It would show a spirit of co-operation in terms of helping the unemployed and in terms of giving a good spur to the economy.


John Carnell Crosbie: First, of course, I was ahead of my time. Hundreds of thousands will desert the Liberal Party in the next few weeks.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION TO HELP UNEMPLOYED
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Fulton musketeer, the old Tory. The Minister was an old Tory back in the days when he thought it was advantageous for him to be a Tory.
New investment in factories, offices, and homes is declining. Capital spending is down for the third year in a row. Housing starts are fading. The leading indicators of the Canadian
June 18, 1984

Imperial Bank of Commerce have dropped for two months in a row. The last time that this happened was just before the recession in 1981-82.
In view of these forlorn signals, in the last few days he has as Minister of Finance will he take any steps at all to help the unemployed? His Budget of February 15 did nothing for them. Every indicator that has come out since shows how flat the economy is, and the lack of growth in jobs. Will he attempt to do anything before he is bounced by the next Prime Minister, who will bounce him if he wants to have any chance of success at all?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thought the repartee of the Hon. Member was rather flat, compared to his usual style, until I noticed that it came from the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest to him that he should find a better source of inspiration the next time, or rely on his own wit. He is better when he is at it himself.
I invite my friend to examine the investment forecast that will come out in a few days, I am told. I believe he will find that the plans of the private sector are certainly encouraging and that there is an indication that we will have growth in investment in real terms in the next few quarters.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADING RELATIONSHIPS-REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON FREE TRADE DISCUSSIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that there were statements made in Washington last week that Canada and the United States were in the process of reaching an agreement on free trade in one sector. At the same time there were statements out of Washington that the U.S. Government is moving, not very cautiously, toward imposing rather severe restrictions on the importation of basic steel into the United States. It is pretty clear that there is a conflict some place.
Has the Government of Canada made representations to the Government of the United States that there will be no further discussions of any kind relating to a freeing up of trade arrangements until such time as the United States Government comes to grips with the problems that it will inevitably create if it moves to restrict Canadian steel access to the United States?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member certainly raises a subject that is of keen concern to the Government. However, he shows small understanding of the process involved in international trade policy and trade rules under the GATT.
What is involved in the Hon. Member's question is, first, the discussions between Canada and the United States about the possible liberalization of trade in particular sectors, to the mutual benefit of consumers and workers in both our coun-
Oral Questions
tries. In order to be more competitive in the world as a whole, there might well be advantages in taking such a course of action. That course of action in relation to specific sectors is being investigated by our two countries in those discussions. Negotiations, as such, have not been undertaken as yet and will only take place if it is found there is such a mutual advantage in various sectors.
One of the reasons Canada is particularly interested in those sorts of discussions is the fact that the United States, faced with an incredible trade world-wide that may this year reach $ 120 billion-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The teacher says 52 per cent. Sit down.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -is finding that its Congress and its industry are utilizing either new legislation proposals or existing legal mechanisms for the examination of the provision of safeguard actions on the limitation of imports. Unfortunately, if they take those actions in various products, and I refer particularly to steel, which is the centre of attention at the present moment, and since they apply them on a multilateral basis under Article 19-


Mr. Nickerson:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -even though Canada may not be the target for the problem, Canada can be severely affected. As a consequence, I have made representations to Mr. Brock, and the Deputy Prime Minister has made representations to Mr. Shultz about the strength of Canadian views on this subject, that any actions the United States takes must be taken in a way so as not to impact on the important two-way trade that exists in steel between our countries.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to assure the Hon. Member that the course we followed was successful when our lumber exports of over $2 billion a year to the United States were threatened by countervail, and we won that battle. We won the battle when there was the threat against potatoes, and we are following with the same zeal-


An Hon. Member:: That's enough, Gerry.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -in relation to the question of steel our efforts to protect the jobs of the Canadian steel industry and its important American market.


Ian Deans: It is clear one of us does not understand, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE UNITED STATES RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN STEEL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, would the Government be prepared to sign into law an arrangement with the United States freeing up trade between Canada and

June 18, 1984
Oral Questions
the United States in one sector of the economy-choose whichever one you will-while at the same time sitting by and allowing the U.S. to impose restriction in an area which will be vitally important to tens of thousands of Canadians' jobs both now and in the future? Is the Government simply going to sit idly by, as is now the case, and allow the U.S. to move almost inextricably toward the imposition of restrictions on basic steel, while at the same time continuing discussions on the freeing of trade in other areas?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: The truest words that I have heard in here-


Martin Brian Mulroney: John is impressed.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -in a long while were when the Hon. Member said that one of us does not understand the situation, and it is he, I can assure you without any question of doubt, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are Okay, Gerry.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Let us consider what the Hon. Member is saying. He is saying that if there is some advantage to Canada and to Canadian workers in achieving a sectoral free trade in one product, even if that is going to protect Canadian products and jobs, let us not talk to the Americans about that possibility if they are taking protective action in relation to any other product. If that is not NDP confused thinking, then I have never heard it. I am saying steel, carbon steel, is one of the subjects where we are discussing the possibility of free trade with the Americans right now because we saw, while the Member was still daydreaming, the threat that exists in the protective action that has resulted in the fact that the American steel industry is only operating at 50 per cent. We are trying to combat that in the same way that we combated the threat to lumber, while the NDP continues to daydream.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that volume and verbosity will not take the place of brain.


Yvon Pinard: Louder.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister for the last time is it the intention of the Government to continue negotiations in areas other than basic steel, which are presently going on, and he knows it, to establish a free trade agreement with the United States in computerization and in other similar fields, and at the same time allow the U.S. Government to impose restrictions which will cost tens of thousands of Canadian jobs?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the Hon. Member, I suggest to him that I am in a better position to decide how we can best protect those jobs in negotiations with the Americans than the Hon. Member, who has shown no previous interest in the subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Come on, Gerry.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The question of what negotiations we will carry on in negotiations with other sectors will depend upon the interest of Canadian workers in those other sectors. At the same time we will continue to give the strenuous protection to the steel workers in this country that we gave to those who worked in the lumber industry.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern in parts of the country over the possible lost sale of $100 million worth of aircraft from de Havilland to air companies here in Canada. My question is for the Minister of Finance in light of his statement in the House that the federal Government cannot give subsidies to Canadian companies wishing to buy aircraft from de Havilland. Would the Minister of Finance explain to the House how he justifies the financial assistance package to de Havilland of $20 million to sell aircraft to Indonesia, while we lose jobs at de Havilland, and while 10,000 other jobs are in jeopardy in the industrial sectors of the nation?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looks at the support the Government gives to de Havilland, he will see that, contrary to the negativist attitude of the Conservatives, the Government has been very strongly behind the aviation industry. I remember when the Opposition was attacking us for giving aid and support to Canadair, and when the Opposition was attacking us for giving aid and support to de Havilland. We have been committing support by investing hundreds of millions of dollars, as a matter of fact, in equity in these corporations. In addition, we are encouraging them to make use of all the various government programs that are available to industry generally in order to expand exports of Canadian goods abroad and also to meet competition. The more support we give to de Havilland generally is going to show in the total price at which it will be able to sell its product, whether in Canada or abroad.
The Hon. Member knows, however, that under the Export Development Corporation there is a program available to all corporations in Canada in order to favour exports and allow us to meet competition abroad. De Havilland is in the same situation in that regard.
June 18, 1984


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister fails to recognize that people who are put out of work in Toronto and area, because those aircraft in which we have invested $500 million to manufacture cannot even be sold in Canada, are the ones adversely affected.


REPORTED OFFER OF ASSISTANCE PACKAGE
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. How could the Minister advise this House on April 17 that there are no subsidies to give to this company to sell these aircraft in Canada, while Parliamentary Secretaries debating in this House say there is an assistance package being offered to Canadian companies, yet as of today all three of them, out west and in Ontario know nothing about this assistance package? Could the Minister of Finance or the Minister responsible for de Havilland rise in his place and answer? Is the Government going to protect these jobs by offering interest assistance to de Havilland, or will the Government let $100 million worth of aircraft from offshore be sold here in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once more I am happy about the latter day conversion of the Conservatives to support of the Canadian aviation industry. I can tell my hon. friend that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Minister of Transport, the Minister responsible for CDIC, and myself, have been very actively at work trying to find ways and means of ensuring that de Havilland will indeed be a very thriving company and that it will be able to market its products, both in Canada and abroad, on a competitive basis. That work has been progressing significantly, and when the announcement is ready the Ministers responsible will make it.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who crows about being the Minister of all Canadians, even though his policies have led to the unemployment of hundreds of thousands of them. Another study has just been released proving the viability of small-scale oil production in the Beaufort Sea through the use of the mobile Arctic Island concept. The Canadian consortium promoting this project includes a firm in my constituency. It has been trying to gain the support of the Minister for this unique Canadian concept for over two years. When will the Minister of Finance pledge his personal support for this project so that it may soon come to fruition, creating hundreds and hundreds of jobs, particularly in western Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the Hon. Member's question. There is no one individual in the House who has been a stronger advocate of the development of energy in this country than the present Minister of Finance, both in his present portfolio and in his previous one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: Also I can advise the Hon. Member that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I have met with the various principals of this project on two or three occasions and that analysis is going on right now with respect to the potential development benefits for Canada of the project.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is interesting that the Minister of Finance hedged on that question. As witnesses have told the Senate hearings on the National Energy Program, the NEP only allows for large scale oil development. That is the way in which the incentive system was structured. Therefore the Minister of Finance would have to admit the failure of the NEP if, indeed, he recognizes the viability of this small-scale Arctic Island project.


PROPOSED DRYDOCK FACILITY AT NANAIMO, B.C.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Will he pledge today to announce funding for a major drydock facility in Nanaimo, British Columbia? The proposal has been on his desk for many months. This drydock facility would allow the construction of the unique mobile Arctic Island Canadian concept, thereby putting hundreds of British Columbians back to work.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been all this time. The Government has supported a substantial number of new ideas with respect to exploration. We welcome his sudden and latest advice with respect to this particular project.


Marc Lalonde: Your Leader is against Arctic development.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What about your Leader?


Edward C. Lumley: Also I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that there is more exploration going on in Canada right now than at any particular time in any other country of the world. The Hon. Member is totally wrong and totally incorrect in his preamble. With respect to the particular project, we will give it our usual analysis and thrust if we think it is important for Canadians.

June 18, 1984
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure he is aware that Vermont Governor Richard Snelling is meeting this afternoon with five Canadian Premiers, along with the six New England Governors. He will be asking them to join in a $100 billion lawsuit against acid rain producing utilities in North America.
Since political action has stalled and to date failed dismally to produce any serious action on the reduction of acid rain, and with 14,000 lakes in Canada dead and 50,000 dying, will the Minister comment upon the meeting which is going on in Vermont? Would he also agree to commit the very substantial scientific and legal resources of Canada to this very important and vital environmental legal challenge which may well take place in the courts of the United States in the near future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have made the question of acid rain one of the major issues in our discussions with United States authorities. The Minister of the Environment and myself have been ceaseless in our efforts to try to convince authorities in the United States to join with us in an abatement program which would apply in North America. Up to the present time that has not succeeded. However, it is a fact that the Government of Canada and the provinces have entered into agreements with respect to abatement programs in Canada, and that recently Canada and a number of European countries have done the same. What is required, of course, is a decision by United States authorities. I do not foresee a decision this year on the part of the administration. Earlier I have said so publicly, that it is not likely they will change their view, which is at the moment that more research is required.


James Ross Fulton: That is precisely my point. The political actions which have been attempted in both Canada and the United States have been unsuccessful. There have been no major reductions in acid rain in Canada or in the United States.


IMPACT OF ACID RAIN ON BRITISH COLUMBIA ENVIRONMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Since his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is in Europe until July, and since reports over the weekend in British Columbia indicate that there has been an alarming increase in the amount of acid rain on the southwest coast of British Columbia, particularly coming from the Puget Sound area around Seattle, my question to the Minister is exactly the same. Does he have anything planned? Will he be talking with George Shultz? Will he be talking with any of the Socreds who were here as delegates over the weekend? Will anything be done for British Columbia, either to reduce the production of acid rain in B.C. or to deal with the production in Puget Sound? Will he do
anything? Will he allow it to go to the courts? Will he support the court action? That is really the crucial question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in my view the solution has to be a political one reached with the administration of the United States. We have to continue our efforts to persuade United States authorities to come to terms with this question. They have not yet done so. We have met similar situations in the past where we have taken some time in order to reach conclusions with the United States. That does not argue for giving up. We do not intend to give up.
The Hon. Member talked about legal action. Let the Governors produce their grounds for legal action and take it, if they wish, in the American courts. Let them pursue their own objectives in the United States. We have to pursue our objectives in Canada and with the administration in the United States, which we are doing. I expect that we will succeed. I hope urgently that we will succeed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Polish Government is now prepared to grant exit permits to the family of one of the three people in Toronto who have been on hunger strike for the past 28 days, will the Minister press Polish authorities to extend similar humanitarian and compassionate concern so that the other two families can be reunited?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we certainly will do that. We have been doing it up to the present time in cases where family reunification is held up because Polish authorities have refused to grant exit permits. Of course that is the problem. We have received indication from the Polish Embassy in Ottawa that Mr. Augustyniak's family had been approved for passports but that they will not be issued until the hunger strike has ceased.
Also I want to advise the House we have been told that of the 16 cases, which include those of the hunger strikers on whose behalf representations have been made to the Polish Consulate in Toronto in early April, 13 have now been promised passports. We are making some progress. As the Hon. Member suggested, we will continue to press Polish authorities until we have succeeded in all the cases which require attention to bring about family reunification.
June 18, 1984


FINANCE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Part of the Minister's recovery program that reduced unemployment from 12.3 per cent to 11.7 per cent over a year was a new tax to increase the sales tax, and tax telecommunications. Does the Minister really intend to proceed with that tax in view of the fact that fewer people are working today than were working before the recession began?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the same question on several occasions, and I have nothing to add to my previous answers.
Oral Questions
set up an advisory board. We wanted to consult with them in good faith. They established the criteria, reviewed the applications, and have now recommended, I believe, six for approval. I might add that most of those are in the Province of Alberta. They are in the final stages of negotiation. Once agreements have been reached, we hope to announce them very shortly.


TIMING OF APPROVAL
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, for other Members of the House, that translates into none. That program was established over a year and a half ago, with $345 million in funds. By the Liberal smoke and mirrors, native people across the country have been encouraged to put in thousands and thousands of applications to gain access to that fund. Not one project has been approved to date. That is deplorable. The Minister said there were six awaiting approval. When will those projects be approved?


APPROVAL OF EXCISE TAX LEGISLATION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, and bearing in mind that companies that are collecting sales tax have to program their computers-there is a great deal of work that companies must do-is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to press Bill C-15 through this House before we adjourn on June 29? If it is not passed by then it will be literally impossible for companies to change the organization of the collection of sales tax for October 1 as set out in the Bill, unless there is a special recall of this House. Does the Minister really intend to do that, or is he just fooling us?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is of course a matter the Parliamentary House Leaders will have to discuss. The House is not going to be forced to do anything. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that any measure adopted by the House requires the co-operation of the Parties. Thus, the matter is in the hands of the Parliamentary House Leaders.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Business. How many projects have been approved under the Western Economic Development Fund of the Native Economic Development Fund, the $345 million which was approved over a year ago?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, after that fund was established we


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the proposals are in the form of agreements. We have to negotiate those agreements with the various groups.


Jack Wendele Shields: When?


David P. Smith: When they sign.


Jack Wendele Shields: When are you going to sign them?


David P. Smith: I have already signed them.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Concern is emanating, not only from the United Transportation Union but from several municipalities, about the intention of CN and CP Rail to discontinue the use of cabooses. When dangerous goods are being transported through communities, this demands every safety precaution. Will the Minister intervene in the CTC hearing, or indicate to the CTC that it will not be acceptable to permit CN and CP to discontinue the use of the caboose?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the railways have not made any specific proposal other than to raise the question that, in the United States, a number of railway operations there have replaced the old caboose system with more sophisticated technology for the detection of safety problems. From discussion with the railways, I thought their intention was to raise the issue simply as a matter of negotiation with the unions during the bargaining sessions, and then they will have to determine what the acceptability would be under those conditions, leaving that kind of determination up to the collective bargaining system. At this time that kind of examination is best left to

June 18, 1984
Oral Questions
those kinds of examinations between the two. If there were any problem related to actual safety we would, of course, take action.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am one of the millions of Canadians who took an interest in and watched the Liberal leadership convention this past weekend. Without doubt it was a time of emotion, elation, and foofaraw. If I could say a little bit, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, today it is coming down from the mountain into the valley of darkness, to the reality of what is going on.
At the very same time that the convention was going on, the Community Information Centre in Toronto was receiving more calls than ever from people who have no jobs and no finances. At the same time 1,460,000 Canadians are without a job. I do not believe any of them were at the convention. What is the Deputy Prime Minister going to advise the new Liberal leader on how to solve that problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked a question that has more to do with the internal operations of the Liberal Party than it has to do with what ought to be asked in Question Period. Because he does raise a very important matter, namely, unemployment, I would refer him to the numerous answers which have been given by the Minister of Finance on this question, not only today but in previous Question Periods, in which he has laid out policies which he has been following in attempting to reduce unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member's supplementary be of a more precise nature?


LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN SASKATCHEWAN
Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, the reality of Canadian life is that there are 1.5 million unemployed people. What went on last weekend did not address that question. I would like to ask what the Government plans to do to address that question. In Saskatoon this week-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, questions in Question Period should be such that they can be answered in the relatively brief time constraints available. The Chair has difficulty. When a question like that is answered, how does one allocate time to the reply? It is very difficult for the Chair to be fair and reasonable under such circumstances. Will the Hon. Member please ask a more specific question?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, there was a 70 per cent increase in the number of unemployed in Saskatchewan from April, 1982,
to May, 1984. What is the Government of Canada going to do to address that question?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a Member from Saskatchewan would not be aware of what the Government has done. He will realize that the Province of Saskatchewan had the lowest level of unemployment and suffered the least from the recession in 1981 and 1982. I remind my hon. friend that as recently as a couple of weeks ago we announced an agreement in principle to construct an upgrader for heavy oil in Saskatchewan that will involve an investment of some $3.2 billion, one of the largest single investments ever made in Saskatchewan. This was done thanks to the co-operation of the private sector, provincial Governments, and the federal Government. These are things that the federal Government has done. Since the Hon. Member is so interested in the Liberal Party I will add that we have elected, from Saskatchewan, an outstanding Indian representative who, I am sure, will bring to the attention of the Party and the Government the concerns of the people of Saskatchewan just as well as the Hon. Member.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Small Business. It is supplementary to the question of the Hon. Member for Athabasca concerning the Native Economic Development Fund. As the Minister knows, he instructed the board of directors of the Native Economic Development Fund to study the possibility and feasibility of using the $345 million, or what remains of it, as the capitalization for a native economic development bank. That was in keeping with one of the recommendations of the special committee on Indian self-government. Will the Minister tell the House when we can expect a report from the board of directors on the feasibility of using this money in such a fashion, rather than in the way in which it is being used at the present time?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the board drew up its criteria for financing various proposals that would come to it, it established a subcommittee to look into that very point. I might say that the work done by the committee that the Hon. Member chaired has been very helpful in that regard. I understand that that subcommittee has more or less completed its report. I have not yet received it, but I expect to receive it shortly.
June 18, 1984


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, June 14, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know it is not Thursday but certain events have taken place in terms of the leadership of the Liberal Party. In fact, a new leader has been selected. As a result, I thought it appropriate at this time to ask the Government House Leader a question.
I assume that the legislative agenda of the Government will remain the same as has been stated by the Government House Leader. If not, will there be a change in the agenda since there has been a change in the leadership of the Liberal Party which has selected Mr. Turner as the ostensible Prime Minister designate? In short, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether or not the legislative agenda and the priorities stated by the Government House Leader before the convention remain the legislative agenda and the priorities until the end of this trimester.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, even without a leadership convention, the order of business is always subject to change. Until I notify my hon. colleague of any change, nothing has changed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 64(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes. In accordance with Standing Order 64(2), I also ask you to designate the Order of the Day necessary for the consideration of this Ways and Means motion.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present on behalf of the majority of Sikh constituents in the constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap a peti-
Tabling of Documents
tion bringing to the attention of the House of Commons the profound tragedy that has been inflicted upon a small minority of the people of India. The petition wishes to draw to the attention of Members of the House of Commons the brutality and violence which has been perpetrated against the holy Temple Amritsar which is presently lying in ruins. They ask for a stay of deportation proceedings for the Sikhs presently within Canada and urge that the International Committee of the Red Cross be given all the necessary support by the Government of Canada to bring aid and relief to those suffering as a result of the violence in the Punjab.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition signed by a number of constituents from Nelson, British Columbia, to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, 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, humbly sheweth that, in the opinion of your petitioners, the Liberal Government is attempting to unreasonably stifle debate by using closure at second reading and committee stage on the proposed Bill to establish a civilian security service, that the Government has refused to allow for broad public input into this process by denying cross-country hearings and that the proposed Bill poses a profound threat to the civil liberties and privacy of all Canadians in that (a) despite the fact that the security service opened files on almost one million Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: May I call to the attention of the Hon. member that he should give a simple summary of the contents and purpose of the petition.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in summary, the petition indicates that the Government has its priorities totally backwards and that the jobs and lives of working Canadians are more important than the creation of a new spy agency.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Harquail) would like to revert to Tabling of Documents for the purpose of tabling a document. Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



FISHERIES


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

June 18, 1984
Introduction of Bills
behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, copies of the Government's proposals to authorize investment in the Pacific fisheries for the purpose of conserving, protecting and developing the fish and improving their management and utilization and to amend the Fisheries Act.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this Bill is to provide protection for the innocent by amending the Criminal Code to reintroduce capital punishment for premeditated murder. This will coincide with the opinions and the desires of well over 70 per cent of the people in Canada.


[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.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. Serge Joyal (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-47, an Act to amend the Indian Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[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.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or 81 which regard to the allocation of time to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain securities and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, and that therefore at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82 to allocate one sitting day to each of the said stages of the said Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Closure!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that there are still some procedural rulings to come from the Chair. How can we possibly end the debate on a motion that is without procedural rulings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has commenced debate. The fact that there are possible points of order raised in the course of the debate will not affect the validity of the motion put by the Hon. Minister.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in giving notice, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is attempting to shut down debate on one of the most important-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not speaking to a point of order.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 503.


Mr. Howie: Since March 1, 1983, did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or its subsidiaries make any loans to its employees and, if so, in each case (a) on what date was the loan (i) made (ii) due (b) what was the (i) amount of the loan (ii) interest rate charged (iii) purpose of the loan?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
June 18, 1984

Yes, in the period March 1, 1983 to January 31, 1984 loans, as detailed below, were made by the CBC-the CBC has no subsidiaries-to its employees:
(i)	(ii)	(i)	(ii)	(Hi)Date Loan	Date Loan	(b) Amount of	Interest	Made	Due	Loan	Rate	Purpose
s
Apr. 01/83	Apr. 01/88	12,750	Nil	Relocation-Housing1June 20/83	June 16/88	12,500	Nil	Relocation-HousingSept. 15/83	Sept. 15/88	21,400	Nil	Relocation-HousingSept. 15/83	Sept. 15/88	21,000	Nil	Relocation-HousingOct. 18/83	Oct. 18/88	6,500	Nil	Relocation-HousingNov. 28/83	Nov. 28/88	8,500	Nil	Relocation-HousingDec. 15/83	Dec. 15/88	14,000	Nil	Relocation-HousingDec. 15/83	Dec. 15/88	17,500	Nil	Relocation-HousingDec. 20/83	Dec. 20/88	8,700	Nil	Relocation-HousingJan. 04/84	Jan. 04/89	9,250	Nil	Relocation-HousingJan. 04/84	Jan. 04/89	4,125	Nil	Relocation-HousingJan. 10/84	Jan. 10/89	26,000	Nil	Relocation-HousingJan. 23/84	Jan. 23/89	8,000	Nil	Relocation-HousingAug. 02/83	Feb. 29/84	7,000	10%	Foreign Posting2Aug. 16/83	Aug. 16/86	15,000	10%	Foreign Posting1	Where the Corporation requires an employee to relocate to an area where the cost of housing of comparable standard is significantly higher,, assistance in meeting this additional cost may be provided in the form of an interest-free loan for a limited period of time. The CBC policy in this regard is in line with that of other large Canadian corporations and government departments.2	Where the Corporation assigns an employee to a foreign location, a posting loan may be made to aid in the transition from Canada to the foreign country. The Foreign Service Directives of the Government of Canada apply to all such loans.


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 687 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 687 be made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nystrom: Since January 1, 1983 were any projects funded in Saskatchewan under the Immediate Employment Stimulation Program and, if so, what (a) are the names of the groups funded and the amounts in which they were funded and to what purpose(s) (b) criteria were used in assessing the validity of projects?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Security Intelligence Service Mr. Speaker: Shall the remaining questions 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 thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)), Motion No. 5 (Mr. Allmand), and Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)).
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair indicated previously that at this point it would hear arguments relating to the matters to which the Chair referred in its decision of Thursday last. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few short observations. I apologize for what happened in the proceedings first thing this morning. However, I was not aware of the fact that the discussion would be taking place at that point in time and my notes were in my office. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I like to extemporise as much as possible but I want to be precise in order that you could get the full thrust of my legitimate intervention on this point of order.
As the House has just witnessed, closure through time allocation has now been moved. In terms of the admissibility of proposed motions for amendments at report stage, Your Honour, whom we acknowledge must look at the procedural rules but also has a certain capacity for discretion with respect to these matters, should in each instance, especially when there will be a severe limitation imposed on debate, opt for the admissibility of motions which are legitimate and which are in fact an attempt to deal with shortcomings as seen by a significant number of Members of Parliament in this legislation, indeed shortcomings which have been acknowledged generally by a very large number of Canadians.
I would like to make a few short remarks, Your Honour, with respect to your initial observations concerning the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 94 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). It is a motion with which we in this Party are particularly concerned. Mr. Speaker, you have stated that, in your view, the motion attempts to insert a provision in the Bill which exceeds the scope of the Bill as passed at second reading. The object of the

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
motion is to clarify the nature and terms of the review that is to be undertaken by the review committee established by the Bill. 1 think that this is an important point: Motion No. 94 merely clarifies the functions of the review committee which is created by Clause 34 of Bill C-9.
As indicated in Clause 38, the primary object or function of the Review Committee is to "review generally the performance by the service of its duties and functions". However, Mr. Speaker, Clause 38(a) outlines in detail certain of these functions. These subclauses, while falling squarely within the general object of the review committee, do not permit the review committee to fulfil its entire mandate of undertaking a general review of the duties and functions of the service.
For example, although Clause 38(a) contains references to the specific powers outlined in certain clauses of the Bill, it does not give the review committee the authority to review the service's role in providing security assessments to departments pursuant to Clause 13(1), or its role in providing advice to all Ministers pursuant to Clause 14. Thus, the specific objects of the review committee fall far short of the general function or objects of the review committee. I suggest with all deference, Mr. Speaker, that Motion No. 94 would correct this oversight.
The general review of the performance of the service cannot take place in a vacuum. Clause 12 of the Bill empowers the service to collect, analyze and retain information relating to threats to the security of Canada and to keep itself informed through public sources of information about the "political, economic and social environment within Canada and matters affecting that environment". Since the service is given such a broad mandate, is it reasonable to assume that a general review of the performance of the service could be any less wide-ranging?
With respect to the specific powers of the service for which no review is provided under Clause 38, it is interesting to note that Clause 13 of the Bill permits the service to provide security assessments to all departments of the Government of Canada. The definition of the word "department" is that contained in the interpretation clause of the Bill and reads as follows:
(a)	any portion of a department of the Government of Canada or of the
province, and
(b)	any Ministry of State, institution or other body of the Government of
Canada or of the province or any portion thereof;
As well, the service is empowered under Clause 14 to:
-advise any Minister of the Crown on matters relating to the security of Canada that are relevant to the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty or function by that Minister under the Citizenship Act or the Immigration Act, 1976.
Thus, it can be seen that the powers of the service cut across all departments and agencies of the Government of Canada. It is also evident, however, that the review Committee that is to be established under Clause 34 of the Bill does not have the authority to review all of the activities, functions and duties of the service. The motion of my colleague would serve to correct this deficiency in the Bill.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, an important aspect of any review of the performance of the service must include a general review of the effectiveness of Canada's security and intelligence functions and arrangements. Only by conducting such a general review of the measures that are in place can a rational evaluation of the security service's role and performance be made. In other words, if it is done in a vacuum, not having regard to the other important elements in terms of the security intelligence gathering functions of government, then the review which takes place by the review committee will be ineffectual and inadequate for the purpose for which it was established. It stands to reason that, even in light of the broad mandate of the service, if other agencies of government are involved in intelligence gathering, then there must be some failure on the part of the service to fulfil its mandate. That information is of importance to any review that might be undertaken by the review committee. Furthermore, such a review is necessary when placed in the context of the service's advisory role to other departments and Ministers.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, it can be seen that the effect of Motion No. 94 would be to bring the powers of the review committee into line with the broad general powers of the service as outlined in Clause 12, and would provide the review committee with sufficient authority to undertake a review of the service's studies under Clause 13(1) and Clause 14. Having regard to what I hope I have established as being the relevance of this amendment with respect to the powers contained in the legislation, and the existing powers which were passed and approved at second reading stage, it seems to me that there is a solid and rational basis upon which Your Honour could come to the conclusion that it is in fact germane and within the scope of the legislation as presented and passed at second reading.
The difficulty which I see if we do not allow a reasonable interpretation in terms of legislation of this nature is this. It is fair to say that you, Mr. Speaker, can take notice of the fact that there is a considerable amount of public interest and concern shown when we are entering into the passage of legislation which deals with the national security of our country. The legislation deals with the establishment of an agency which will have the scope and power to investigate and, to use the colloquial term, spy upon people, residents and citizens of Canada. Procedural observations should be equitable and brought forward on the basis of a fair and rational debate in a free and democratic Parliament.
I do not want to sound maudlin, Mr. Speaker, but I believe there are important principles of freedom involved in this legislation which would dictate that you, as the first commoner, would opt for a reasonable interpretation of this legislation, allowing a debate on the ability and capacity of the review committee to investigate the capacity of the security service to operate in the context of other security intelligence gathering agencies in Canada. That is the essence of it. I believe it is based upon fair and reasonable procedural considerations. I believe I have been able to demonstrate with respect to this
June 18, 1984

legislation that there is relevance to the principles approved by the House on second reading.
I realize I have mentioned this before in other procedural arguments, but I feel strongly, and Hon. Members of my Party feel strongly, that, as much as possible within the bounds of procedural acceptability, we allow motions and amendments which are germane to the legislation and in which there is a very substantial interest of the people of Canada and very great stakes are involved.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will exercise the fair discretion of your responsibilities as Speaker of the House and allow the motion which was presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), namely, Motion No. 94.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I would certainly by and large adopt the arguments made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), with respect to the admissibility of Motions Nos. 93 and 94.
With respect to Motion No. 89, which attempts to provide for greater flexibility and independence on the part of the review committee in the hiring of its staff and the establishment of its budget, I recognize the citation which Your Honour has referred to from Beauchesne does specifically preclude any imposition of an additional condition with respect to the royal recommendation. Of course, since the involvement of the Treasury Board would appear to be one of the safeguards which, even though some of us might disagree, the Minister appears to want to include in the powers of the review committee, I recognize that that is a condition and that by attempting to remove that condition we appear to be moving beyond the scope of the royal recommendation. Therefore, I will not take issue with Your Honour's preliminary ruling with respect to Motion No. 89.
I would, however, strongly appeal to the Chair to reconsider Your Honour's preliminary ruling with respect to Motions Nos. 93 and 94. I recognize the wisdom of Your Honour's preliminary ruling with respect to Motion No. 89. However, I ask Your Honour to reconsider Motions Nos. 93 and 94 for the reasons enunciated by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, and given the context of the proposal which is set out in Motions Nos. 93 and 94. Motion No. 94 generally refers to the relationship between the proposed civilian security service and other intelligence agencies in the Government of Canada. Motion No. 93, which is set down in my name on behalf of the New Democratic Party, calls for a review of the relationships between the service and all other bodies and agencies engaged in security or intelligence functions in Canada. Then there were a number of other provisions with which I believe the Chair has not taken issue.
Your Honour stated in your preliminary ruling: "This is clearly a new idea which was not contained in the Bill as agreed to at second reading stage". Surely, Mr. Speaker, one of the purposes of clause by clause study is to improve upon the substance of legislation, not to import wholly new concepts
Security Intelligence Service
or new ideas which are beyond the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, where there is an opportunity to improve upon the Bill as presented, surely that is the responsibility of the committee.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that by including this provision we have not gone beyond the broad scope of the Bill, the principles of the legislation. What we are doing effectively, Mr. Speaker, is responding to many representations which have been made to the effect that one of the responsibilities of a new review committee must surely be not only reviewing the intelligence functions of the service but as well the relationship between the service and other intelligence agencies in the community. Certainly this was a strong recommendation of the McDonald Commission.
I would note, Mr. Speaker, that we are not dealing in this instance with a suggestion that the review committee should somehow have jurisdiction over other intelligence agencies. That would be a separate amendment, to suggest it should have the power, as indeed was recommended by a number of witnesses, to effectively provide for oversight of the other operators in the intelligence community. Some of us believe that would be a good idea. However, that is not the purpose of this amendment. This amendment states that the security service obviously is going to have relationships with other agencies in the intelligence community. It would merely expand-but not beyond the principles of the Bill-the scope of review of the new security intelligence review committee to encompass those relationships. Therefore, it builds upon the foundation of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. It does not in any way add a new or different principle to the Bill.
I suggest that if there is any doubt whatsoever as to the procedural acceptability of a motion of this nature, particularly where it is-I believe the Speaker would recognize-very close to the line, perhaps, it nevertheless is one which I would submit, after reviewing the question, falls within the nature of an amendment which adds to the Bill. It certainly does not in any way alter the substance of the Bill. Therefore I would urge Your Honour to permit the debate which should be held on this very important amendment. I would urge Your Honour to allow the debate to take place on Motions Nos. 93 and 94.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that you are in the position of having to make rulings on these amendments a few minutes after the new Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Turner-who has come out of a convention talking about reform of this place, reform of the Liberal Party and reform of the process-has just moved a form of closure on the security Bill. Your Honour, of course, is not a part of any of that. I could not agree more that this is not of your doing. However, it is interesting and I believe it puts Your Honour in a more difficult position than Your Honour ought to be placed in.
However, the fact of the matter is that shortly after this great convention in which we are told we are going to have change and reform, the first thing which is done by Mr. Turner is to make sure that closure is put on the discussion in this House of the security Bill. There is no way he or anyone

Security Intelligence Service
else can get away from it. What should be clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, is that nothing has changed as a consequence of the weekend. The Government Party now with its new leader is just as determined to continue the tactic it has used so far, which is to accept no amendments whatsoever, then to make every effort to make sure that those amendments which have been put forward cannot properly be debated.
Referring specifically to your ruling, I understand perfectly the rule which Your Honour asks us to address, that is, whether an amendment which could charge the review committee as set up in Bill C-9 to examine other than just the security service is such a departure from the Bill that Your Honour cannot accept it in this Chamber at this stage. That is your specific point. That is what you have asked me to address.
I want to remind the House that under Clause 38 the Government has insisted that the Security Intelligence Review Committee should only review the operations of the service and no other agency dealing with Canada's security. The Progressive Conservative position is put forward in Motion No. 94. It was argued in committee and was the subject of a great deal of discussion. That position is that the committee should have as one of its functions the review generally of the effectiveness and propriety of Canada's security and intelligence functions and arrangements wherever such functions and arrangements are carried on in the Government of Canada.
For those who might argue that this motion brings in some separate notion, I would point out that the security service has been in existence these many years and it will continue to be exactly the same security service when Bill C-9 is passed. That security service is dealing with every other element of intelligence gathering within the Canadian system. It is naive and ingenuous in the extreme to suppose for one minute that a security service operates in this country without having a great deal of interaction with other intelligence gathering agencies or groups within Canada. One of them, of course, is the communications security establishment of the Department of National Defence; and, of course, another is the Department of External Affairs.
The rationale for this amendment is that the Security Intelligence Service will be interacting every day with other agencies and institutions of this Government which are engaged in security information and in intelligence. The Security Intelligence Service, for example, may-and I would say it goes beyond "may"; it will be receiving information from the communications security establishment of the Department of National Defence and certainly from the Department of External Affairs. It is our position that the committee must be able to assess the reliability of such information that the service may act on. In addition, the committee must also be able to look at all such functions in order to determine whether certain activities are being performed on behalf of the service and should be removed from oversight and review.
The whole object of this Bill is to establish by mandate a set of rules which will try to establish in the minds of the Canadian public a sense of trust that the security service indeed has clear direction and at the same time is properly constrained. The point I am making is that it is impossible to expect the review committee as set out in this Bill to effectively review the activities of the security service which everyone knows relate to other information gathering agencies in the committee cannot examine that relationship. That is the substance of my argument. It has been set out quite clearly by others speaking before me and it may well be repeated.
The other issue is that Your Honour is now caught in the unpleasant situation of being asked to rule on these matters, as is your duty and responsibility, at a time when a new leader of the Liberal Party has obviously sent a direction to the Solicitor General to put closure on this most important Act, which Alan Borovoy has stated recently contains some of the greatest threats to the security of Canadians since the beginning of Confederation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to indicate at this point that there seems to be agreement with regard to Motion No. 89. The Chair will rule that out of order. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) indicated he accepted it. The Chair would like to reserve judgment on the other two motions, No. 93 and No. 94, and will attempt to render a decision at the earliest possible time after reviewing the record of the House.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with a most important issue. We saw the Government move closure on second reading. We saw the Government refuse to take amendments in committee, as well as try to stifle debate. Now we have the Government, led by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), moving closure on Bill C-9. Closure under a new Prime Minister who is going to be more open and less arrogant towards Parliament and the Canadian public. In view of the continued arrogance of the Liberal Party and the disrespect shown for Parliament and for the Canadian public, I would like to move this motion:
That this House now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair has received the motion from the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller). The Chair would refer the Hon. Member to Standing Order 8(3):
When it is provided in any Standing or Special Order of this House that any business specified by such Order shall be continued, forthwith disposed of, or concluded in any sitting, the House shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.
Because of that Standing Order I cannot accept the motion of the Hon. Member.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no special order or House order with respect to the conduct of the business at the present time, so surely to goodness a motion to adjourn under these circumstances is entirely in order. That Standing Order is not applicable in
June 18, 1984

these circumstances. If there was a House order for a vote at 5.45 today or at 9.45 today, in those circumstances that Standing Order may be appropriate. However, it is under no circumstances applicable in these circumstances. I respectfully submit that Your Honour reconsider and recognize that there is Government business before the House and that it is the right of any Member to protest the arrogance of this Government in moving closure on such an important Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I was prepared to listen to the Hon. Member presenting an argument until he started debating another issue. I would refer him to Standing Order 9(1) which provides that:
On the tenth sitting day preceding June 30 a motion to extend the hours of sitting to a specific hour during the last ten sitting days may be proposed, without notice, by any Member during routine proceedings.
I refer the Hon. Member to the proceedings of this House on Thursday, June 14, where in unanimous consent was given to a motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). As a result, I am afraid my ruling stands and a motion cannot be accepted.
For continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with provisions of this legislation dealing with the definition of national security in Canada. I had the privilege of representing my Party for a period of time as critic with respect to this legislation. We had a very full debate and a number of representations were made to us by people across this country which I think were fairly consistent. These were not a group of lunatics or people who were unduly concerned or a little crazy. These were eminently sensible, outstanding citizens of our country who made a consistent plea to us as Members dealing with this legislation.
The plea which we as Members of Parliament received was that there was great concern and apprehension over the broad definition of what constituted a threat to national security under this legislation. I will give an example of what I am talking about. Under this legislation, if you are found to have supported movements and groups outside of Canada which advocate the overthrow of established governments in other countries, you become a target for the civilian security agency to spy upon. There is no question that at first blush that does not sound like an unreasonable proposition. There are some groups which I do not think 99 per cent of Canadians would want to be associated with which do support the violent overthrow of some legitimate foreign government.
It has been pointed out to the Government time and again that there are some very legitimate concerns. Sometimes there is an element of violence involved. However, sometimes this is the only recourse for people who live under oppression in countries which are not democratic. Are we going to say that the people who support Solidarity in Poland should become a target of our new security service? That is an outrageous
Security Intelligence Service
proposal for any of us. It is outrageous to say that those of us who support freedom against tyranny and oppression should become legitimate subjects of our new spy service. If that is common sense and logic, and if that will be the result of this legislation, where are we headed in Canada?
I would have thought that after the Liberals had a chance to consider the leadership of their Party this issue would have been defined and articulated. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was one of the leading supporters of Mr. John Turner.
I assume when the Solicitor General takes a position on this legislation that he reflects and advises Mr. Turner as to the position the Government is going to continue to take with respect to the legislation. He is a spokesman for John Turner, the future Prime Minister, with respect to this legislation.
I asked the Government House Leader today whether the legislative priorities were going to continue. He said that nothing has changed. The Government House Leader said that Mr. Turner is the new leader and everything that is going on in this institution is okay with him. We had hoped that the matter of civil liberties, the freedom of people in Canada to conduct their affairs without being spied upon by this new civilian intelligence agency, would have been an important issue to Liberals and to Mr. Turner. Where does he stand? He is cheek by jowl with the Solicitor General. He believes the Solicitor General is right. One of his leading supporters and organizers is now, by this definition of "threats to national security", imposing one of the most serious threats to Canadians in any legislation which has been passed during my parliamentary experience, which extends back some 10 years.
As parliamentarians we ask ourselves how any government comes to the conclusion that it is going to open up an agency to spy upon people who have legitimate concerns about the freedoms of people in other countries. Under this legislation the Government is able to unleash enormous capacity to spy on everything done by individuals, groups and agencies which may in fact support the Sandinista movement. There is violence involved there. What about Central America? What about the Afghan rebels? Is anyone in this House prepared to stand in their place and say that anyone who supports the Afghan rebels should be the subject and target of the secret service in this country? It is preposterous even to suggest that.
We brought in amendments. Unfortunately the Speaker saw fit to disallow them because of a procedural fluke. The Speaker said that this is a substantive amendment to a definition section. We have been prohibited by the Speaker from bringing in amendments to tighten up the definition of threats to national security. Our last resort is to support a motion which deletes this provision and opens up the question of redefining threats to national security. That is the serious matter we have before us now.
I know the kind of advice that people in the Government get from their bureaucrats. That say that they need a certain flexibility in the operation of a security service. That kind of advice is for self-protection. The transition team is most interested in not having too many constraints placed upon it. It wants a broad scope and mandate under which to operate.

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
That is only normal. It is human nature, if I may be permitted to say so. The Solicitor General may be being advised not to get too technical, not to put the service under too many constraints or to make their lives difficult. That is what political responsibility is all about. That is why, in our system of government, the Minister should stand up and say that although it may be difficult to carry this out and administer it, he is talking the political responsibility to show the people of Canada that never, while he is Solicitor General, will we have a country in which civil liberties will be trampled upon and free expression in support of democratic principles will be thwarted.
Where is the Liberal Party in terms of the freedom of Canadian citizens? Why is it silent? Why, except for the purpose of moving closure of this debate, are Government Members not standing up to defend their position if it is so defensible? They are silent because they have no defence.
As a western Canadian I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as I speak to Canadian citizens in my part of the country I learn that this concept of a civilian security intelligence agency has caused apprehension. Liberal Governments have had the mentality that they know best, that people cannot be trusted, and that bureaucracy is everything. People often wonder why there was such an outcry when we questioned some of the moves that the Government has taken in terms of emergency planning legislation in peacetime, in terms of taking control of our communications and, by Order in Council, taking control of things which we thought were under the direction of Parliament. When the Government has that kind of mindset it is no wonder that it is prepared to resort to closure in order to trample the civil liberties of Canadians. This is not going to be forgotten by hundreds and thousands of Canadians who are going to be faced with the issue in the next election.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say that I am absolutely fed up with the process that is taking place here today. As a result of the Liberal leadership convention, I thought there was supposed to be a new Liberalism and a new approach. Particularly, the Liberals were going to be sensitive to the interests of western Canada. However, what do we find? When we return on Monday after the new leader was been briefed on Sunday, the Liberals are putting closure on a motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a foreclosure on freedom.


Blaine Allen Thacker: They are foreclosing freedom. It is absolutely abominable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I must draw to the Hon. Member's attention the fact that we are not debating a motion to allocate hours; we are presently debating a series of motions, starting with No. 2. I would appreciate Hon. Members giving attention to the motion that is being debated.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, we are essentially discussing the clause that deals with threats to the security of Canada. The
action of the Government this morning is a threat to the individual security of Canadians.
The RCMP has had a long history in this country. It is respected from shore to shore. Recent polls show that people have immense trust in the RCMP. Everyone knows that the RCMP were let down by the politicians.
While it is true that the RCMP burned some barns and broke into some offices, it did so at the impulse of the highest order in this country. When they were exposed, the politicians and Cabinet scurried for cover and left the RCMP to hang out on the line. In order to punish the RCMP it brought in this civilian agency to take that responsibility away from the RCMP.
The actions of the Government will destroy another major institutions in this country. It is an institution that people trusted. Of course, that is part of the Government plan. The Government will pay a bitter price. How will the Liberals be able to go to the west to ask for votes? How can they tell westerners to trust them when, the first day after they pick a new leader, they destroy the security agency of the RCMP?
Let me say why I am critically worried about the wording of these clauses. Clause 2 deals with threats to the security of Canada. It gives the definition of those threats but to truly understand it one must read Clause 12 first to see how they work together. Clause 12 states that "The service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise . ..". What does otherwise mean? The clause continues: "... information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds ..." All the witnesses said that it should state "reasonable and probable grounds", which is a higher standard, before it can begin to collect information. However, the Government would not accept that amendment. It only states "... on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada"; and thereon it shall report and advise the Government, which is the Cabinet.
Once this security agency is in place it will collect information by investigation or otherwise. It will take information intelligence on activities. One must then look to see what "threats to the security of Canada" means. We all understand what "threat" is with respect to espionage or sabotage because in our modern world, particularly with Soviet agencies operating around the world, we must counter that. We understand its meaning when dealing with people who come from other countries with the intent to destroy our way of life. We have no trouble with its application to foreign-influenced activities or activities within or relating to Canada that will cause threats or violence to property or people. However, we are concerned about Clause 2(d). Clause 2(d) states:
activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately-
-to attack the constitutionally established system of government. The security service can interpret those words widely. For instance, if the Western Canada Concept said that it may have to separate if it does not get reasonable representation in the west, the security agency can say that that statement is
June 18, 1984

intended ultimately to overthrow the constitutionally established system of government.


John Leslie Evans: You leave out the words "by violence".


Blaine Allen Thacker: It says "intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or"-


John Leslie Evans: "Or overthrow by violence."


Blaine Allen Thacker: It can be "either or". It is not "and".


John Leslie Evans: The destruction or overthrow by violence, either one by violence.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Either one, that is the point. By taking a broad definition, the agency could interpret that to be the destruction but not by violence. If the clause read "toward the destruction and overthrow", then both tests would have to be met before that clause could be triggered. Once the agency triggers the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), for example, because he spoke to a group that the agency believes ultimately intends to get at our way of life, it can intercept his first-class mail, instal telephone taps and remove his medical files and legal documents even though it is his private business. There can be a massive investigation of his personal life because he gave a speech to or went to a rally of a group that, in the opinion of the security service, ultimately intends to overthrow or destroy by violence the Government.
That clause is simply worded wrongly. I sat on the committee. I listened to those 25 witnesses and read over 50 briefs which were presented by people like Mr. Borovoy of the Civil Rights League of Canada and the lawyers who appeared. Many legitimate groups said that this wording is too broad in the Candian tradition of freedoms. Consequently, they proposed amendments to it. They have proposed amendments that reduce the ability of the security service to go after our own people. This clause is not designed to go after others because that is provided for in the other clauses. This clause is designed to go after our own citizens. We all feel the shame of what we did to the Japanese-Canadians. They were Canadians whom our own Government uprooted, removed their property and never adequately compensated. Today, in 1984, the Liberal Cabinet is insisting on a wording that would permit the same type of attacks on our own people. We do not have a history of subversion that justifies that at all.
The Government's own member, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), is a former Solicitor General in the Liberal Cabinet who knows what it is like from the inside. He has said that the wording is wrong and has put down and amendment that is very reasonable. Yet the Cabinet has rejected a proposed amendment from a former Solicitor General of its own Government. There is something wrong.
The Government is insisting on this wording even though it is too broad. This wording has been rejected by witnesses. A proposal for change has been made by the former Solicitor General. I just do not understand why the present Solicitor
Security Intelligence Service
General and the Cabinet would not accept an amendment to Clause 2(d) which attempts to go after our own people. It is an intimidating clause. How will I, as a Member of Parliament, be free to talk to groups when I know that this clause will allow someone in the security agency to single me out and I could be subjected for years to investigation and intrusive techniques on my life? It is wrong and the clause must be defeated.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on this Bill at second reading, I tried to emphasize our concern about the need to have narrowly defined definitions. If we are going to talk about security, we had better define it very carefully. I have wondered since that debate why it is that the Government has so much inertia, so little willingness to listen to any kind of change that might narrow that definition. It suddenly dawned on me that possibly one of the reasons the Government does not want changes is that it does not understand the genuine concern and fear that exists on the Opposition benches. It does not understand it, though not because it does not want to. When you look at the Government benches there are so few Members who represent the multicultural community and therefore have no input that would allow them to understand this kind of fear.
I can tell you that within this caucus there are numbers upon numbers of Members who come from a multicultural community who either themselves or their relatives have experienced a police state that gives them a genuine concern for and fear of this kind of legislation. They have faced this kind of insecurity. When I look at my colleagues who have come from Eastern or Western Europe and who have faced this kind of situation where any kind of definition can be changed to suit a situation at the whim of an official, I know there is cause for genuine fear.
Members of the Government do not understand the sincerity of our concern regarding this aspect of the legislation. It is impossible for them because neither they nor their families have experienced such a situation. When we live in times of real calm in Canada, when we are at peace, when there is no social upheaval or international upheaval that touches our borders, it is understandable they do not really appreciate what we are talking about.
In the seven or eight minutes left to me I want to remind Members opposite of four experiences which they should be able to recall that underscore why we are worried. First is World War II and the climate of fear that existed in Canada on the part of those who did not come from United Kingdom stock but who came from European or Oriental stock. Let me remind Hon. Members that it was the Liberal Party in 1939 or 1940, when it wanted to criticize the CCF, as it was at that time, and Mr. Woodsworth's defence of the Orientals, that put ads in the paper reading: "Vote socialist and you bring in the yellow peril". That is what the Liberals were advertising in those years. That was done because of the emotional charge at

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
the time and the racism that existed in the Liberal Party; there is no question about it.
I draw on my own experience in World War II. I come from a German ethnic background and happened to be pacifist. How would you like to live in a German community, Mr. Speaker, having the name Schmidt and be in a pacifist community which refused to take up arms against the Germans? You were a pacifist because your religion said you should not take up arms. When you combine wartime fever and the anti-German atmosphere, which cultivated hate and fear, with a religiously pacifistic community, there was nothing that could stop that community from being the subject of hatred by the rest of the community. All you needed was a secret police contingent to swoop down.
Let me remind my colleague across the way who shares my alma mater with me at the University of Washington what it was like in the late 1960s and the early 1970s during the Kent State riots. I remember standing in the commons of that university seeing policemen standing on the library roof looking down at a crowd of 10,000 students and the drifters who came off the street to demonstrate against the administration. You could easily understand, with the police up there, why the people who demonstrated wondered how many police there were among them. During times of high emotion there is legitimate concern when one has loose definitions.
In October, 1970 in the Province of Quebec, I do not have to remind Hon. Members that over 400 Quebeckers, citizens of Canada, were arrested and imprisoned but never charged. The former Speaker of the Senate, who is a former Minister of Transport in this Chamber, Mr. Marchand, a very honourable person, laughed when he saw the list of people who were arrested during that time of peak emotion.
I want to point out to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) that today there are citizens of Canada who are demonstrating against a foreign government. I am speaking of the Sikhs in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and other places who are demonstrating against their former country of Indian because of the policies of the Indian Government against the province of Punjab. They are demonstrating in favour of the State of Khaliskan and so forth. When you see them on television demonstrating, in our terms peacefully, all it takes is a wildeyed secret officer to say they are being violent.
I want to bring to the attention of the Solicitor General that many thousands of Canadians came from the Third World and thought they were escaping the kind of legislation he is introducing today. When they see the implications of this legislation, I can tell him that members of the Sikh community in my constituency will be concerned. There were 2,000 people who demonstrated in Vancouver and if they knew what this legislation portended they would be very concerned.
Definitions have to be very precise. Under the dynamics of today's world when the ideologies of the counter culture have a dynamic that is built upon changing meanings of words, it is imperative that definitions be very precise. If we do not have a precise definition for violence or what constitutes overthrow, what constitutes national security, those people in the counter
culture who are bent upon non-democratic means are going to twist the meaning of words. That is their goal. That is their modus operandi. Therefore, as a lawyer, as a civil libertarian and a man who ought to be concerned about the civil rights of all Canadians, I urge the Solicitor General to look at the definitions and make certain that when we are debating national security, violence and overthrow of government, all those kinds of terms, he gives us definitions so precise that they cannot be twisted.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Pornography-United States legislation action- Canadian position, (b) Government plans; the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain)-Finance-Proposed mortgage rate protection program, (b) Increase in mortgage rates; the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen)-Co-operatives-Task force recommendation on workers' co-operatives, (b) Consultation with Canadian Labour Congress representatives.



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 thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)), Motion No. 5 (Mr. Allmand), and Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am afraid the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) has already spoken and cannot be recognized at this time.
June 18, 1984


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In ruling me out of order in moving a motion, you did not recognize me standing thereafter to speak in this debate. Either I was speaking on an adjournment motion or I should have been recognized to continue debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I draw to the Hon. Member's attention, so that there will be no misunderstanding, Standing Order 41 which is quite clear. In part it reads:
No Member, unless otherwise provided by Standing or Special Order, may speak twice to a question-
I do not need to read the rest of the paragraph. In fact, the Hon. Member rose to propose a motion which was not accepted by the Chair. However, that means he is recognized as having spoken on this question and I cannot recognize the Hon. Member for a second time.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on Clause 2 of the Bill because I am concerned about the expansiveness of some of the definitions. Certainly the Hon. Minister and the Government should give some thought to defining these words much better than they are defined in Bill C-9.
I was rather amazed that the first act of the new Liberal leader was to announce closure on this important Bill. Surely the consideration of whether we have the RCMP or a separate intelligence body is an important issue for the country, yet the new Liberal leader pronounced closure almost before his ears were dry from the convention. Certainly that was no tribute to the Liberal Party or to freedom of speech. I think the people of Canada should be aware of that. Surely to goodness a Bill concerning the authority-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), but I have already referred to the fact that the motion before the House is the one which is supposed to be debated. I cannot accept continuous allusion to extraneous matters.


Gordon Edward Taylor: However, Mr. Speaker, closure was announced today on this particular Bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You can speak on that tomorrow.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Consequently, what I had to say was in connection with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I do not think the Hon. Member is wanting to argue with the Chair. However, I point out that if there is a motion proposed at some future date, that would be the time to speak on it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is fine; we will certainly do that because the people of Canada should know that closure was his first act.
Let me deal with these threats to the security of Canada. I was raised in a coal mining area. I know what can happen if the words "security", "threats" and "activities" are not very carefully defined. When I was a small boy of six or seven years
Security Intelligence Service
of age, I recall that World War I had almost ended. Even now I remember the violence and the feelings which ran so high against German people on account of Kaiser Bill because many of our boys from the Drumheller area had lost their lives on foreign soil fighting for freedom to run our country the way we wanted. Some people felt that it was the time to get even. Two or three of them went at midnight to the home of a Canadian of German extraction who lived by himself. They had evil thoughts in their minds. They pounded on his door and broke his windows. Finally they were about to break in his door when he warned them by saying: "I have a shotgun; if you come in I will use it". They had no right to be on his property. He was a Canadian citizen. He was not responsible for what Kaiser Bill did, any more than the German people in my constituency were later responsible for what Hitler did. They had no sympathy with it. It was completely unfair to chastise them and put them on the spot, thinking that anything they did was in line with what the German leader did. But they did not stop. They broke in the door, and the Canadian of German origin used his gun and killed one of them. That ended that fracas. Then the police came.
In part, Clause 2 reads:
(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state-
Certainly the freedom of unions to operate is highly political. Also the clause provides:
(b)	foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person.
The definitions are entirely too wide. Let us look at the strikes that take place in coal mining areas. I have referred in the House before to a number of strikes. When I was in grade 12 I had to walk through a barrage of people who wanted a particular union. My folks happened to be UMWA people, which I think is a splendid union. It has proven itself to be an excellent union. However, there were other people who wanted the Canadian union which, in my view, was headed by nothing short of a bunch of communists.
Was this a threat within Canada in which the intelligence corps should become involved and take sides? Those who were on the side of UMWA received threats that their houses would be burned. Many of them, including my own brothers and sisters, insisted upon going to work because UMWA was not on strike. The Canadian union was determined that no one would go to work. They broke car windows, threatened to burn houses and so on. These types of things take place, but who is to say which side happens to be loyal to Canada? I think both sides included many people who were loyal to Canada. Later on one of the leaders of UMWA became an excellent ambassador of the Canadian Government in another country. Certainly we could not say that the people on the UMWA side were disloyal to Canada. On the other hand, the convictions of a number of people were that the Canadian union should have dominance because they did not want funds going to the United States, to the UMWA. The UMWA has certainly taken funds from Canada to United States. During the depres-

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
sion years, funds came the other way from the UMWA. They came back into Canada to help the depressed families when the going was tough and the coal miners were not working.
The point is that we have a clause that would enable action to be taken against people because they are fighting for their convictions, for their freedom of choice. Surely our people should not be put in that position when they fight for their convictions in the belief that this will make a better country. I say that for both sides in that strike.
I remember walking through a crowd in front of the bands of men and women who were on the side of the Canadian union. It should have been called the communist union. I remember them with their pitchforks, shovels, axes and knives. What could happen with definitions like this with regard to threats to the security of Canada, the political objective within Canada or a foreign state?
I urge the Minister to consider the definition of "threats to the security of Canada". Suggestions have been made as to alternatives which makes some sense. At present it is far too wide. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to bring in amendments. If Canadian men or women so much as talk to a union, they may well become a marked man or woman. That is not freedom of speech or freedom of tenure. That is not the kind of country I envision Canada to be.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion before the House today which, if adopted, would delete Clause 2 of the Bill to establish a Canadian Security Intelligence Service. What we find offensive in this clause are the subclause near the end of the clause. The rest is simply definitions of an employee, a foreign state, who the Inspector General is, who the Minister is and that sort of thing. It then tries to define threats to the security of Canada. There is quite a detailed explanation as to what threats to the security of Canada might be. It states, and I quote:
(a)	espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
The Criminal Code defines "espionage" and "sabotage" effectively and directly, yet we have a very detailed explanation here which goes beyond the Criminal Code explanation. It "fuzzifies" the whole definition. The balaqce of the definition of threats to the security of Canada is as follows:
(b)	foreign influenced activities within or related to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
(c)	activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state, and-
I will read the final subparagraph because it should be on the record:
(d)	activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy,-
That is the disclaimer.
-protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).
That opens up a lot of questions. The Canadian Council of Churches went through this Bill. They have some questions which have not yet been answered. They pose questions concerning the interpretation of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of that clause. They wondered if that clause could be construed to mean that lawful church activities and mission work, or lawful church and community activities, including development education, peace advocacy and human rights defence, might not fall within those definitions. How could a church lawfully raise money, as many churches are now doing, for governments in Nicaragua, Guatemala and a great many countries in Africa where churches are providing assistance, countries that are in a politically unstable state? Sometimes our country does not approve of the government in power at the time.
Would it be construed as going against the best interests of Canada if our current government did not approve of their current government? If members of an activist group in another country came here to address the church group, would they subject themselves to surveillance? Would their activities fall within the definition in Bill C-9? In defining the powers of this Bill, it is a question of what is in the interests of Canada?
The interests of Canada are not defined in this Bill. Some of the interests of Canada may be defined in the Constitution, but it is hard to find much in that. Ultimately it comes down to somebody, somewhere in the security service, deciding what are the interests of Canada. They do not report to the House of Commons or to the Parliament of this country, yet the interests of Canada are supposedly being looked after. Someone elected to the position of looking after the interests of Canada has no way of finding out what this agency is doing and what is defined to be in the interests of Canada. We could well have the little social affairs committee of a church in Fort Qu'Ap-pelle, Saskatchewan subjected to surveillance by the new security service because it has chosen to discuss the political situation in a country such as Nicaragua and Guatemala.
The churches also have some problem with the definition in subparagraph (b) and pose this question: Consider that a visiting foreign finance minister from a country where churches have carried on mission work for many years requests a private meeting with Canadian church officials in Canada to discuss Canadian aid and trade policies. This is not a hypothetical kind of question. In the last couple of years, officials who are former church officials and are now members of the government of a foreign country have come to Canada to discuss that very item. When such a visitor comes, he inevitably comes in part to aks for assistance. He attempts to enlist the aid and advice of his Canadian friends in the churches. What would that action be deemed to be by this faceless agency that is deciding what are the interests of Canada? Would it be felt to be in the best interests of Canada for a group of church people to be discussing development and political problems that exist in a foreign country with someone from that country, or would the agency that is deciding what is
June 18, 1984

in the best interests of Canada decide that these people are a bad influence and therefore this group is a bad influence and that by simply holding a meeting with such a person from such a country, that group would then become subject to surveillance and investigation in this country? I think that strikes at the very root of the democratic right that we in the country thought we had, the right to meet in public assembly and to discuss any topic we wish to discuss in public assembly.
By leaving the definition of the interests of Canada vague, ill-defined and almost not defined, and by leaving those decisions to be made by the security service itself, a service which does not properly report to this House and is not properly accountable to this House, a very scary situation is created. In order to have a better clause, we at this time move to have Clause 2 deleted, and that is what we are proposing to do by this amendment.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this particular clause of the Bill involves definitions. Grouped for debate are Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. I wish to direct your interest to Motion No. 5, Mr. Speaker, a motion placed on the Order Paper by a former Solicitor General for the Government, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I think that this particular motion gets lost in what I might call a ridiculous motion, it being Motion No. 2 which had been moved by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), a motion which seeks to strike out the entire clause. Frankly, I think that was an unreasonable motion and that it should perhaps have been disallowed in the first place.
What is most important is that in presenting his Motion No. 5, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East deals with the central issue of this Bill, and that is the vagueness with which the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are defined. As you will know, Sir, Clause 2 attempts to define "threats to the security of Canada". We wind up with the requirement for another subclause, because "threats to the security of Canada" have suddenly become something detrimental to the interests of Canada. I do not know what is detrimental to the interests of Canada. Frankly, most of the time I think that this Government is detrimental to the interests of Canada. Indeed, a million and a half people who are presently unemployed think that this Government is detrimental to the interests of Canada. Taking a broad look at the Bill, that would presumably allow this security service to investigate everything and everyone.
The amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East specifically and narrowly defines in a proper fashion what the interests of Canada are and what threats to the security of Canada are. Rather than dealing with espionage or sabotage that is detrimental, the Hon. Member specifically suggests that the definition in Clause 2 be confined only to espionage or sabotage directed against Canada and not espionage or sabotage that is detrimental to the interests of Canada, whatever those may be.
Security Intelligence Service
That is the Hon. Member's First suggestion and it is clear and understandable. The gobbledegook that is contained within the Bill unnecessarily broadens the grounds for investigation to something far beyond what I think is proper.
The second suggestion made by the Hon. Member is in paragraph (b) of his amendment which reads:
(b) foreign activities within Canada which are harmful to the vital national interests of Canada,-
Paragraph (b) of the Minister's clause reads:
(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,-
If any activities involve threats to persons, those responsible can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. The fuzzy definition that we are expected to approve in the draft Bill that was returned from committee is improper. The tight wording proposed by the former Solicitor General makes sense and should be adopted.
Throughout this whole debate, we should look very carefully at the suggestions made by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. His suggestions are sensible and tie down the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" in a precise fashion. That definition is tied down to the point where such activities must be related to what is happening within Canada. As the Bill presently reads, it allows investigation of all kinds of activities rather than just those activities which are related to or in support of threats of violence in the country. Again, it is important that the amendment which narrowly limits the grounds on which threats to the security of the country may be investigated by this service be considered.
I believe we ought to take the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East very seriously. That Hon. Member has had experience as Solicitor General of Canada. He is interested in the whole problem. He does not produce a blanket "get-rid-of-the-clause" amendment that lacks reason. He produces for us a cogent, well argued and well defined amendment that makes it possible for us to say that if that amendment is accepted this Bill will be a better Bill.
I know that the only change to the Bill from the way it was presented at second reading and altered in committee that was accepted by the Government thus far was the insertion of the word "serious to paragraph (c) of Clause 2 which falls under the definition of "threats of the security of Canada". That is not good enough. We cannot allow this clause to go unchallenged. We must have the narrow definitions that are required as presented by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.
For example, Sir, paragraph (d) of clause 2 reads as follows:
(d)	activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts,-
And it goes on to read:
-or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government
in Canada,-

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
What does "ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of' mean? How far ultimately down the road must we go? The Bill does not tell us that. The narrow definition which is contained in (e) of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East indicates that the covert unlawful acts must be directed to the overthrow of the existing constitutionally established system of Government in Canada. They will not ultimately lead to the destruction, but to covert acts which will, in fact, lead directly to the overthrow of the constitutionally-elected Government.
The wording which the Minister is imposing on the House is wording that can only lead this agency to have such police state powers that it must be unacceptable to every Member of the House with democratic beliefs. I am surprised that the Minister should even have thought of this particular kind of provision. Surely, with his background he should have been more concerned than others about the kind of police state possibilities that exist in the security service. When the Bill deals with an activity which might ultimately lead to the destruction or overthrow of a government by violence, there is no limit to the activities which might ultimately lead to do something. How far down the road do we have to be "ultimately lead"? That is the kind of wording which is in the Bill proposed by the Minister and the Government. The fact is that this wording gives the security service far broader powers than were ever contemplated by most Members of the House.
If we are to pass this Bill, we should get rid of these provisions and accept the amendment which was proposed by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. That amendment makes some sense. It ties down, with a little bit of precision, the powers of the security service. It ties down, with a little sensible precision, threats to the security of Canada.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this crucial clause of Bill C-9, which involves the question of defintions of subversion as opposed to dissent, I would like to begin by saying that my attitude for some years now has been one which favoured the separating of security work from the work of the RCMP. I would like to begin by saying why I believe that.
As a result of my own personal experience, I have gained a great deal of respect for police work. I was born into a world in which my maternal grandfather was the chief of police in my home town of Transcona. His son, my uncle, followed him into police work and was in the RCMP for some 25 years. I have always had a great deal of respect for the work done by the police and for police people in general. Also, I came to know a great many of them through my involvement in the militia. And so it began to disturb me, when I became involved in questions of political import, that the people for whom I had the greatest respect, in this case RCMP people, were also being asked to perform work which I considered quite unsavoury. They were being asked not to enforce the law, but to do
things which from time to time constituted harassment and unnecessary intrusion into the lives of law-abiding citizens.
I came to the view that this kind of work ought to be separated from police work in general. When I am stopped on the highway, for whatever reason, I want to see a person who is enforcing the law, not someone who is associated with all these other matters. I felt that the RCMP was coming into disrepute as a result of its security work. I would like to see that work separated, because I would like to see a police force which we could respect in this country, and I expect that that kind of work will go on, no matter what kind of amendments we make to this Bill, because it is the nature of governments to do so. That is why I still favour in principle the separating of those two functions.
In spite of my cynicism about the future, the House had an opportunity, when bringing this new service into being, to correct some of the mistakes of the past and to admit that there has not been a great deal of sophistication or, for that matter, sound political judgment in the matter of who was simply engaged in legitimate forms of dissent and who was truly a threat to the security of Canada.
We had an opportunity throughout this debate-and it is an opportunity which I genuinely feel has been missed-to focus on what is meant by security, to focus on what are threats to security, to narrow them down and to give our security service a mandate and a focus which respects the full breadth of what it means to be a democracy. We have not done that. Instead, the definitions in Clause 2 provide the legal framework for the leeway which has always been there in an illegal way in the past. We could have taken this opportunity to define what security means, thereby ensuring that all the people who have been unnecessarily watched, unnecessarily harassed and unnecessarily paid attention to in the past will never again be in that situation. That is what we could have done. Instead, we have a situation in which the previous leeway is being institutionalized. Ironically, we are providing the legal framework in 1984 for the kind of vision about which George Orwell so rightly was concerned some 40 years ago.
People may say, "Well, don't be ridiculous. We don't plan these sorts of things". However, we are not legislating only for this Government or even for the next government. We are laying the framework for what will constitute threats to the security of Canada for a long time to come. In that respect, I share the view of the Canadian Council of Churches that Bill C-9 is too broad in scope and vague in definition to be acceptable in its present form. Bill C-9 would permit intrusive surveillance in the form of the electronic bugging of conversations, surreptitious entry of offices and homes, invasion of confidential records, mail openings, and infiltrations of social organizations, including churches, agencies, members and employees. It would also make possible the surveillance or interference of many lawful activities. I share the Council's view that that kind of broad permission is inconsistent with the vision of the kind of Canada that all of us ought to be seeking and in which we want to live.
June 18, 1984

I am particularly concerned, Mr. Speaker-and it was mentioned earlier by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-with the question of what is detrimental to the interests of Canada. I believe that has to do with the clause on domestic subversion. Who defines the interests of Canada, Mr. Speaker? We are here every day debating what constitutes the interests of Canada. Many of these so-called political and security questions over the years have been questions of whose economic interests are at stake. Anyone who has taken any time at all or made any effort to study history knows that what has sometimes been elevated to the category of "interests of the nation" or the interests of a particular country, or, for that matter, the interests of a particular alliance, has really been the economic interests of powerful groups within that particular country, that particular nation or that particular group of countries. Therefore, it frightens me, Mr. Speaker, to think that we could have so general a definition of what this new security service is instructed to concern itself with. Determining what is "detrimental to the interests of Canada" surely is what the political exercise in this country is all about. We have a wide variety of views as to what constitutes the "interests of Canada". Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have missed a wonderful opportunity here. I must say I am not surprised that we missed it but I am deeply disappointed, because what we have here is a confirmation of the fact that this Government is not particularly enlightened or concerned about civil liberties. It is not particularly concerned about parliamentary accountability. It has not seized the opportunity to do the kind of things which we could have done. If there had been the will on both sides of the House to do a good job, we could have made Canada into an example to the rest of the world of how to conduct the admittedly necessary business of protecting the security of one's country, but we could have done it in such a way as to eliminate as much as possible the possibility of anyone being unnecessarily harassed, watched or investigated. We missed that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that I hope many Canadians share my disappointment and I hope that not too far in the future we will have the opportunity to review the whole thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words on this particular clause of Bill C-9 which is before the House today. I am concerned about the tremendous discretion which the definitions allow the new security service when it comes to defining what "threats to the security of Canada" means.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, there was an excellent comment made about that subject by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) when he spoke in committee on December 6. Perhaps I will repeat it for the House because the Hon. Member really summed up our position well.
Security Intelligence Service

He said:
Mr. Chairman, on Clause 2, clearly the relevant and the most important provisions in Clause 2 are the provisions containing the definition threats to the security of Canada, because it is on the basis of the definition of threats to the security of Canada that all other activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service flow; that is, other than the secondary mandate, the mandate with respect to security assessment and the mandate with respect to foreign intelligence.
He went on to say, Mr. Speaker:
In my view the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" in this legislation is dangerously drawn up and would permit, furthermore, the targeting of either groups or individuals within Canada that are seeking to support groups outside Canada that are trying to achieve political objectives; trying to overthrow, in a number of instances, repressive military dictatorships. Under the provisions of this legislation as it is worded, Mr. Chairman, under the definition of "threats to the security of Canada", as witness after witness has submitted to the committee, this would effectively permit the service, at its discretion, to target peace activists, church groups that support liberation movements in Central America; to target political organizations or the labour movement when they send funds in support of the African National Congress in South Africa.

I believe that that definition of the sweeping powers given to the new security service for those kinds of activities really sums up the feelings which a lot of Hon. Members have about the definition of words like "subversion". I know from experience that many peace groups, for example, might be under surveillance because someone in the security service may think that they are on the wrong side of the political fence, or that what they are doing might not be good for the Government of the day, and so on. I also know from experience that in many democratic countries, including our own, many of the church activists are often under surveillance because of some of their activities. As I have already mentioned, groups in this country which are raising funds for certain liberation movements in different parts of the world, and so on, are sometimes under surveillance because the Government of the day might not agree with that kind of activity. Therefore, I am concerned about this provision, Mr. Speaker. I hope that for those reasons this Bill will be amended so that the definition of "subversion" and other definitions are made much more restrictive.
We are, obviously, Mr. Speaker, not the only people who are concerned about this. There has been a general clamour across the country from many different groups that too much power will be given to this particular security service. For example, the Canadian Council of Churches, which is a group of some 12 Canadian churches which voluntarily co-operate through its agencies on matters of economic and social concern, are also very concerned about the breadth and sweeping nature of the security Bill which is before the House today. The Canadian Council of Churches includes the Anglican Church, the Baptist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the United Church and many other churches which have banded together to express their great concern about the sweeping nature of this Bill. I believe we should take their point of view into consideration, and that should be one reason at least why this Bill should be radically amended.

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Something else which concerns me as well is that it is not just the churches, Mr. Speaker, who have expressed their concern, but a number of other groups such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have done so also. That is a highly respected group which involves a lot of Canadians. It has said to the committee as well as publicly that it is very concerned also about the extent of the discretionary powers which are allowed to be used by the new security service, for example, the snooping power through electronic devices, bugging devices, through all kinds of searches, through mail openings, or through invasion of confidential records. These groups say that these powers are too sweeping under the legislation the way it is written. There is too much discretion being left in the hands of the security service itself, or in the hands of the Government, in terms of deciding how far the security service can or should not go. These are concerns, as I said, not just of a few of us, but of the Canadian Council of Churches and of the Civil Liberties Association of Canada. I can also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those are the concerns of a lot of average citizens as well.
I said earlier this morning that the United States has a much greater record of political violence. It has experienced the unfortunate assassination of several of its presidents, including the attempted assassination of President Reagan a few years ago. Despite that, the FBI does not have the sweeping powers this Government across the way wants to give to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I suggest that you would probably agree that Bill is giving unnecessary power to the security service. That is not a very good thing for our society. It is unnecessary and it is going to provoke more harm than good.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 115 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending Section 16(1) of the House of Commons Act to provide for the appointment of additional members as Commissioners of Internal Economy from the House at large, and to provide for the remuneration of the Commissioners appointed pursuant to the said section.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have just reviewed my file on this particular question of amending the provisions with respect to the Internal Economy Commission, and I see that I first raised this point almost ten years ago. In October of 1974, at the opening session of Parliament, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) moved the nomination of four of his Cabinet colleagues to the Board of the Internal Economy Commission, I rose on a question of privilege and challenged the view that hitherto I had been given by the Prime Minister's Office, but one which was severely challenged in other sectors, that the commissioners had to be from the Cabinet rather than simply Privy Councillors as provided for in the Act. It is a question of determining which Privy Councillors. In May of 1980, I put forward Bill C-273 which amended the Senate and House of Commons Act but which did not provide for any remuneration. In drafting the terms of this motion I followed the proposal put forward and ready to be tabled in the form of a Bill by the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yel-lowhead (Mr. Clark) in December of 1979. It would have added to the board and provided for some remuneration.
I will read from a letter I wrote to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead on June 19, 1979. I am sure that he will not mind if I read this although he is the recipient and the owner of the letter now. I was suggesting to him that one of the questions he would have to decide before the newly elected Government met Parliament was this question of the board of Commissioners of Internal Economy. I said:
You may recall that on the opening of the session October, 1974 I raised a question of privilege about the practice of naming exclusively as commissioners four members of the Cabinet and contended that it was within the power of the Prime Minister to include members of the Privy Council who are not of the Cabinet. This would have allowed wider representation including from the Opposition among the commissioners.
It is not that I contended that the practice of naming Cabinet ministers exclusively was in itself illegal but I felt that it was not necessary to do so, contrary to the opinion of the then Prime Minister. In this matter I was supported by our caucus because it was a view that Mr. Speaker should be ultimately assisted by Commissioners of Internal Economy representing the House generally. In order not to open the House of Commons Act for amendment and in order to achieve this, it would be a first step to name Privy Councillors who are not members of the Cabinet among the Commissioners of Internal Economy.
I agree that one or two of these commissioners should be members of the Cabinet as the government party has an undeniable right to majority representation on the Board of Internal Economy.
May I interpose here to say that this could also apply to a number of my colleagues opposite who are, like myself, not of the Cabinet. We are Privy Councillors but we are not of the Cabinet. My reason is that Cabinet Ministers are so busy that it is very difficult to get them together for appropriate meet-
June 18, 1984

ings to study a situation. I will go into that in a few minutes. My letter continues:
The upshot was the naming of an advisory committee of the House of Commons to Mr. Speaker and the commissioners which has sat so far under the chairmanship of a member of the Opposition. This latter fact was as a result of keen negotiations I had with the government representatives on the committee where we had the Honourable Angus MacLean to offer as an experienced parliamentarian as chairman.
I think it was a stroke of genius on the part of the committee to accept the Hon. Angus MacLean, because he was probably the most respected Member in the House at the time. He was extremely knowledgeable of this place and a keen observer. He was followed by Bob Coates, MP, as chairman. I went on to say in the letter:
However, you may recall that the other day you and I discussed briefly the nature of the administration of the House of Commons and its rather sad state in a number of sectors. One of the reasons that this is so is the grave difficulty of getting together the Commissioners of Internal Economy because of the pressure of their other duties.
This had been communicated to me by the then Speaker as being one of the biggest difficulties in getting decisions. I continue:
It is a rare occasion on which these representatives can be brought together to assist Mr. Speaker and frankly the situation demands better than that. Even sixteen years ago, when I had a brief term of duty as Speaker, it was very difficult to get together the board, and I suppose this may have been at the root originally of my concern about the nature of the administration of the House.
Now, I say advisedly, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a change in the administration. It has been tightened up very much. But there are many of us who feel that the House of Commons has now become in effect almost another department of government. This is a natural reaction of the people who have been brought in to head various sections of the administration. With the greatest respect I say that I do not think the Speaker has the time to oversee fully, as he or she should, the administration of this House as well as look after the responsibilities of being the Speaker of this Chamber. With the greatest respect to the Chair, I say that I think the Speaker's role should be defined as being that of being responsible for the operation of this Chamber and the social responsibilities of the first Member on the Hill. However, the nuts and bolts of the restaurants, the health services, the pay services, the pay scales and negotiations with Hill staff should not be the day-to-day responsibilities of the Speaker.
Matters such as facilities for Members and conditions under which they travel should be considered by a commission board generally composed of Members of the House. We are dealing with ninetheenth century paternalism. The Speaker and four Cabinet Ministers decide what facilities and amenities I and my colleague from Dartmouth should have. They decide how many times he should be able to travel to his constituency and what is required of constituency offices. Cabinet Ministers have their passes and assistance provided through other means. They are so busy with their offices, departments and constituencies that they cannot give the required detailed attention to examine the proposition with regard to Members. The net
House of Commons Act
result is that although they attend commissioners' meetings-I gather they are now on a more regularized basis-they know nothing of what is on the agenda. They receive their advice from the Administrator or from the Speaker who has been advised by the Administrator and other administration officials, whether it be the Sergeant-at-Arms or the Clerk.
I say that is wrong. We have plenty of talent among Members who could handle this job much more effectively and responsibly for the constituents of the board of the Internal Economy Commission who are Members of the House of Commons, their staffs, and the staff of the Hill. That is wh^ I want to see the change.
This is done in a different way in the United Kingdom. The Speaker is still the nominal head and takes a certain direction depending upon the personality of the individual. There is a board which operates usually with a junior Cabinet Minister as the responsible head. A number of staffs at Westminster are unionized. I have been there when the dining room staff, for instance, was on strike. They have a great habit of going on strike. Those negotiations must be carried on by someone authorized to do so on behalf of someone.
As a matter of fact, I would strongly contend right now that the office of the Speaker is not authorized to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of Parliament or the House of Commons with members of the parliamentary staff. The commissioners themselves do not do so. There is nothing in the Senate and House of Commons Act which says that they can do it. Therefore, there has to be legislation introduced which will set up a commission board presided over, if need be, by the Speaker, with power to add a flexible body, but a body definitely corporate in law which can be a party to a collective agreement should one come about.
At the present time those who are asking about collective agreements on the Hill are baying at the moon. The Canada Labour Board, biased as that body may be, cannot authorize the House of Commons by law to be the signatory of a collective agreement. That legislation will have to be brought forward. Doing so provides the opportunity to change the nature of the board of the Internal Economy Commission.
There are a lot of things about which Members are complaining. However, they have no sounding board. There is the Management and Members' Services Committee. The chairman of that committee has never met the commissioners in session. He has never been brought in for consultation as to the nature of recommendations put forward by the advisory committee. Mon Dieu, que c'etait un dialogue de sourds under the previous Speaker. The situation has deteriorated to the point at which it became sheer frustration on both sides. That is a committee which is non-partisan. I have been a member of that committee since 1975, and so have many others. It is non-partisan. We are looking after the interests of Members. I have never seen a body that was so frustrated and angry, and that was unnecessary. There was a breakdown in communications which should never have happened.
How can we improve on that? I am not trying to knock the situation merely for the sake of knocking it. I want to improve

June 18, 1984
House of Commons Act
the situation. This is likely one of the last speeches which I may make in the House. I want to point out that after 27 years as a Member I think I can appreciate the limitations and frustrations that are the lot of a private Member. One of them is this institutional treatment of Members as though they could not look after their own affairs. We are treated as though we were in a big school with a board of masters looking after us which is so high and mighty that they do not understand the problems. For instance, there is not one Cabinet Minister on the commission who understands the problems of a wife who travels far in western Canada. She is charged 1.5 points if she is travelling with her husband but is only charged one point if she travels economy. All Members are entitled to travel first class and are not charged 1.5 points. The decision to mix the points was made by the Internal Economy Commission.
The put-down experienced by wives of Members from western provinces and Newfoundland in order to use that facility is unbelievable. It only takes four trips to exhaust a wife's complement of points. If a Member must travel six times, he can do it in economy, but the wife is aware that by travelling economy she has been put down by this differential rate. This is what I am talking about.
We all know that of the many changes that have been effected with regard to parliamentary staffs this is an improvement, but it should come from where Members can go and see their own people.
I thank you for allowing me to transgress on my time, Mr. Speaker. I earnestly urge all Members to allow this motion to go to committee or to be accepted so that it will be a signal to the Government that Members of Parliament want a change in the nature and composition of the board of the Internal Economy Commission so that they may have a say in the operation of the matters that concern them so much.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I know you are smiling. Always beware of Members of Parliament who start their speeches this way. However, you may take me at my word. I am somewhat hesitant about speaking again to this subject. The Hon. Member who moved the motion will remember that I took part in a similar debate before. In any case, I am doing this for the simple reason that it may be my last chance to speak to my peers, since I thought, after ten years in politics, this might be the right time to say farewell to this House. At the end of this term, I shall be leaving public life, and my Rosemont constituents will have to choose a new Member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, with your leave, and despite the rules of relevance, I would like to thank all my colleagues with whom I have worked during the last ten years, and also the officials of the House of Commons and, of course, my constituents in the riding of Rosemont, who during three terms have allowed me
to represent their interests at the seat of Government, and to do so to the best of my ability, to work for the well-being of the people who elected me, and to try to make our governments as responsible as possible so that Canada, this exemplary parliamentary democracy, will take the road of progress at the end of the twentieth century and look to a future which, I hope, will be as progressive and as positive as it can be, especially for our youth who are seeking their identity and are looking at the future with some anxiety.
Mr. Speaker, the last ten years were ten years of experience on which I look back with pride, not because of my work as such, because one must be humble in politics, but because serving one's country is probably the highest goal to which we can aspire in our working life.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned accountability, which is the essence of the motion of the Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The Hon. Member wants to include in the Board of Internal Economy, now consisting of members of the Privy Council, a number of backbenchers who would provide better representation, within a body that manages our destiny as an institution, for the divergent but also complementary interests of the Parties, the Government and backbenchers, the aim being improved accountability, whether physical or financial, on the part of the administration of this House, to the elected representatives and the Canadian people.
I need no convincing by the Hon. Member to realize that this is the way of the future. In fact, the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, or rather the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform, whose third report and the amendments proposed therein continue to structure the business of the House during this trial period-it is to be hoped they will become permanent for the next Parliament-this committee then proposed in its ninth report a formula very similar to the one suggested by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. In this report, committee members suggested that the enabling legislation that provides for the organization of the Board of Internal Economy be amended to allow four backbenchers to sit on the Board, two representing Government backbenchers and two representing Opposition backbenchers, with at least one representing the Official Opposition. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, Special Committee members were in favour of having these representatives elected by their respective caucuses, this to avoid a situation where once more, the Government would be controlling these appointments. The exact formula could be worked out later and is not all that important. It is the principle that counts, which is to make the Board of Internal Economy truly representative of the interests of all Members of this House, which is not the case right now. I am not criticizing the way the Board operates.I think Hon. Members who sit on the Board at the present time and are members of the Privy Council certainly have our interests at heart and are doing their best to
June 18, 1984

respond to suggestions coming from the Committee on Management and Members' Services.
That being said, the very concept of accountability implies that we must not only have the right, we must also be seen to have the right. The visibility of this right is lacking in the Board of Internal Economy and its membership. Let's be realistic. In other parliamentary democracies, even in Canada in the provincial legislatures, backbenchers have a say in the administration of the institution. Why should we not have the same responsibility and the same duties here in the House of Commons, especially since our parliamentary colleagues in the other place have already taken steps to make their presence felt in the manner in which they are administered.
Mr. Speaker, in the Senate, which I suppose I should not name, they have already done in practice, though not in law, what the Hon. Member for Edmonton West is suggesting.
We are nearing the end of this Parliament. I do not think that, in the few days of debate we have left before a general election, we can expect to change the Board of Internal Economy. It certainly is not, and perhaps should not be, a legislative priority. However, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the House who return after the election to act on the recommendations of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, which are also contained in the Ninth Report of the Special Committee on Regulator Reform and adopt them, either as is or as amended.
The time to do this is at the beginning of a new Parliament. We now have two new leaders. What will be their respective positions? Let the voters decide. However, one will be Leader of the Opposition and one Prime Minister. The two new leaders have promised to give the House of Commons more responsibility and a more active role, which might even go so far as the much maligned free vote, but at least some necessary changes will be made in our operating methods.
The Third Report of the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform is only a first step. The House must go much further when a new Parliament begins. For instance, it should start by broadening the scope of the Board of Internal Economy by opening membership to backbenchers and making the Board truly accountable. Mr. Speaker, as you know, neither the Chair nor the President of the Privy Council nor members of the Board of Internal Economy may be questioned here in the House on the operations of this Board. We have no way, as parliamentarians, to express within these walls any problems, concerns, queries or complaints about the Board of Internal Economy. We must go through the Committee on Management and Members' Services, which is only an advisory body that transmits the complaints of Members of the House of Commons to the Board of Internal Economy, the latter having the actual executive power with respect to the administration of this House. Therefore, a good place to start would be to bring some democracy to the Board of Internal Economy, to do what our Senate colleagues have done, and our colleagues in Westminster, and the Questure in France, and what our provincial legislatures or at least most of them have already
House of Commons Act
done, which is to allow Members to run their own affairs, because that is what it boils down to. Let us run our own show! This House belongs to us. We work in it. We are responsible to the voters if there are any administration problems. Therefore, if we are accountable for its administration, we should also participate in that administration. Responsibility implies accountability. However, for the time being we are accountable, but not responsible. Give us the responsibility and we can then be truly accountable for the administration of the House of Commons!
Mr. Speaker, without wishing to take up any more of the House's time, since other Members will probably want to speak as well, I should only like to add that I agree wholeheartedly with the Member for Edmonton West, who for many years has been in favour of this measure which, as a concept, is reflected in the recommendations of the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform. It is a measure that probably has the support of most Members of this House. I therefore urge the future Leader of the Government, when a new Parliament begins, to implement not only this recommendation but also the other recommendations made by the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform, in order to make this institution as modern and efficient as it should be and also to make it accountable for its administration to those it administers.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I want to thank my constituents and my colleagues. Until we meet again. Goodbye!


An Hon. Member:: Hear!


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say it is very odd to rise in the House of Commons to speak after two distinguished gentlemen who have both indicated they may each have made their last speech. I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who has been a prominent force in the House of Commons for as long as I have been here. He is a former Speaker of the House and has always taken a very active interest in the proceedings of the House of Commons' committees on procedure. He has also taken a very prominent role in financial measures before the House of Commons.
I also regret that my friend, the Hon. Member for Rose-mount (Mr. Lachance) is leaving. It seems to me that he and I have spent the last year working together on the Special Committee on Procedural Reform for the House of Commons. I have come to know him and to appreciate him in ways that I had not before this opportunity came about. I think the House will be poorer for the loss of both these hon. gentlemen.
One of the things that always impressed me about the hon. gentleman from-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to do Hon. Members who participate in the debate

June 18, 1984
House of Commons Act
the courtesy of being here, but unfortunately I am now five minutes late for a very important steering committee meeting downstairs. I shall return immediately so that I will not miss their golden words.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West has a reputation for being very persistent. This particular motion is one that he has been trying to convince the Government to accept for about ten years. It is a motion that I support.
I have never understood the reluctance of the Government of Canada to allow Members of Parliament who are Privy Councillors but who were not Members of the Government to participate in the affairs of the House of Commons. We were able to obtain a halfway step in the formation of the Special Committee on Members' Services, and later its inclusion as a committee in its own right in the Standing Orders. But there is nothing in the law that ever prevented the Government from accepting the principle that other Members from other sides of the House and from the back-bench of the governing party be represented on the Commission of Internal Economy. It is no wonder that Members used to call the Commission of Internal Economy the commission of the infernal economy. It tended to make judgments and spending decisions which many Members had a great deal of difficulty understanding and accepting. It was, I think, one of the extensions of the Government that caused Members of Parliament a great deal of difficulty in understanding the motivations of Government in terms of its approach to the House of Commons. The fact that the Government kept extending its control over the precincts of the House of Commons, over the operation of the building that houses the House of Commons and the Senate, always struck me as extraordinarily retrogressive steps.
One of the reasons I support the proposition advanced by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West is that the House of Commons Act, Sections 15 and 16, which set out the powers and the duties of the Committee of Internal Economy. Section 16(1) reads:
16.(1) The Governor in Council shall appoint four members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who are also members of the House of Commons, who, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, shall be commissioners for the purposes of this section and Sections 17 and 18.
You will note it simply says members of the Privy Council who are members of the House of Commons. It does not say members of the Privy Council who are Members of the Cabinet or Members of the Government. Yet, the Government has refused to accept the possibility of extending to Members on all sides of the House the opportunity to participate in what is in effect their Chamber.
This reluctance on the part of the Government has made life more difficult for Speakers. It has certainly made life more difficult in the House for the Government than was necessary. It was in my judgment a stupid blunder on the part of the Government not to extend representation on the Commission to Members on the opposite side and to Members on the backbenches of the Government side. It always increased the
suspicion that what was going on in the House of Commons was not in the interests of Members but, rather, only in the interests, of the Government itself.
If Hon. Members will look at the work that has been done by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure they will see that one of the items we took up was the question of how should the House of Commons govern itself. Should we continue with the existing example? Should we look, instead, at the way in which the Senate has governed itself? Should we look at what other Parliaments have done? In effect, members of the committee examined very closely the manner in which the British House of Commons governed itself. We also took a look at the way in which the Senate of Canada governed itself.
Hon. Members of the House of Commons may be amazed to discover that Members of Parliament in the Senate have a system of governing themselves which is absolutely mind-boggling to those of us who sit in the Lower House. There, power over Senate affairs is shared among all Parties. Members are appointed to the governing committee in the other place, not on the basis of being members of the Government but rather for independence of mind and questions of good judgment.
Here, one has to demonstrate perfection by being in the Cabinet to be a member of the Commissioners of Internal Economy. In Great Britain they go further. They provide for a strong committee on which the Government has representation and on which the back-benchers of the governing party have representation, as well as all other parties. There is a fair amount of consultation and consensus developed over time. Even though the Government makes the appointments, the appointments in fact are made on a highly consensual basis.
What we tried to do in the report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure will be found in its ninth report to the House, which was tabled on June 22, 1983 and is now Sessional Paper 321-8/26F. The report is not long, it is succinct and to the point. It makes a great deal of sense. It will provide a blueprint for whomever becomes Prime Minister after the next election for reforming the House of Commons in a manner that will be acceptable to all, except those people who have sat on the Commission of Internal Economy as Commissioners and have jealously guarded those powers. To those Members who have never had that advantage, these reforms will seem like a breath of fresh air.
The committee made a number of recommendations which I think are eminently supportable. Basically the committee indicated that the House of Commons Act could be changed to amend the existing sections with which I dealt earlier in my speech, that a new board of internal economy be set up and that the change in terms of membership would be as follows: Members of Parliament, not just Members of Parliament who happen to be Privy Councillors, who are not in Cabinet would
June 18, 1984

be eligible to sit on the new board. That would open the scope of membership to all Members of the House of Commons. It would not exclusively provide an opportunity only for those Members of the House of Commons who are Privy Councillors, not in Cabinet per se. I think that is a significant change in itself.
The board in the future would be composed of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, two Ministers of the Crown-that is Cabinet Ministers,-the Leader of the Official Opposition or a Member designated by him and four others; two Members appointed by the Government caucus and two from the Opposition caucuses, including at least one from the Official Opposition. The proposal we made did not specify how the caucuses were to make their appointments because we thought that was best left to the caucuses themselves. This would ensure that the dominance in terms of numbers at least on the new board of internal economy would be broadly spread out through the system.
We would recognize the special position of the Leader of the Opposition who under the Standing Orders is in fact an officer of the House of Commons. He would be represented on that board in any way he saw fit. It would satisfy the necessity of Members of the back-benches of the Opposition caucus and of the right of the New Democratic Party or a third Party to be represented by caucus as well as the right of the back-benches of the governing Party to be represented by caucus. It would provide a broader range of opinion and it would provide an appropriate role for Members of Parliament to participate in the governing of our Chamber.


Ian Deans: That is fair.


John Mercer Reid: I hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). We tried to provide when we were discussing this matter a method which would be unassailable, that no person, not even the most devout proponent of the existing system, could possibly find unfair. We tried to make it more palatable for the Government and we included two not one representatives from Cabinet on the board. I felt that was somewhat excessive, but I recognized the fear which the Government had that Members might act irresponsibly. It was certainly culpable because of the reluctance to allow anyone else on the committee before, but probably as an interim measure this was as good as we could get.
If we take a look at the proposals we have produced we find that they meet the requirements the Hon. Member for Edmonton West has put forward in terms of fairness, being logical and disturbing the Government probably less than it might be disturbed in its desire to control the affairs of the House of Commons.
I confess that as a former Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader, that is to the President of the Privy Council- of course not the current one-I often felt that because of the responsibility of the President of the Privy Council for the Commissioners of Internal Economy, he tried to run the House of Commons as if it were a branch of his own Department. In fact, I often felt there were dangerous tendencies on the part of
House of Commons Act
Presidents of the Privy Council to regard the operations of the House of Commons as they regarded the operations of their own offices. I think it is an instinctive reaction because of the unique position in which the House of Commons Act puts the President of the Privy Council. Basically he carries responsibility for the Estimates and, by and large through the Council, he has the responsibility to veto spending propositions. In point of fact, the way in which financial reporting was established, he had power over the operations of the House of Commons as if it were in fact his own Department.
One proposal we made was an attempt to break that kind of absolute control with which the President of the Privy Council tended to feel he was blessed by the House of Commons Act, by trying to demonstrate that there were wider interests to be considered as well. I might say that the President of the Privy Council often shared that power and authority, particular aspects of it, with the Speaker and with Opposition Parties. It was never a total one-way thing, but the responsibility, as the Act was interpreted and implemented, certainly led the President of the Privy Council to feel that he was responsible for the conduct of business in the House of Commons.
I think that approach communicated itself to the Government. One tendency I have seen over the last five years or six years which I regard as quite undesirable has been the overtaking of the administration of the House of Commons by the Government. For example, there has been the change in the control over the grounds outside from the House of Commons to the Department of Public Works. That is one item which I find most unfortunate. I feel the House of Commons and the Senate should be much more co-operative in order to fight off the imperatives of various government Departments as they try to take over more and more of the precincts of Parliament. It is recognized by all that they can play a very useful consultative role, particularly as the precincts of Parliament have grown substantially over the last 10 years.
As a result we have another proposal in our report which requires the establishment of a joint committee on parliamentary services between the House of Commons and the Senate. We feel that would lead to a quick resolution of a number of duplications of services that have continued to plague us, and of the difficulties we have had from time to time in terms of the jurisdiction of the building.
As Hon. Members will recognize, there has been a tendency for the jurisdictions to clash. I think we are all aware of the last example, but I think I should mention it. It occurred when a decision was made on the House of Commons side to have a different form of security clearance than Members of the other House were prepared to accept. There was a clash between the representatives of those chambers.
Putting in place a mechanism such as the committee recommended would go a long way toward eliminating those kinds of problems and making life in this building that we share much more harmonious than it has been from time to time. We do have a number of joint committees. For example, there is the joint committee on the library, the joint committee on the

June 18, 1984
House of Commons Act
restaurant, and a number of others. Unfortunately, for reasons beyond my knowledge at the present time, the chairmen have not called meetings of those committees. We have not had an opportunity in those committees to review the activities that properly are the responsibility of clearly defined committees within the responsibility of the Standing Orders of both Members of the Elouse and Members of the Senate.
It has always been a source of amazement to me, and from time to time I have made inquiries, that the mechanisms in place to provide for the calling of these meetings were never really activated. With the new rule that emanated from the third report of the special committee, I hope that kind of situation will no longer continue. It strikes me that once Members give up their rights to sit, meet and discuss the business of how the House of Commons operates, they give them up to the bureaucracy, the Government or a party leadership. That is undesirable. We have suffered from the effects of these neglects. In my judgment, we have only ourselves to blame because we as a group have not brought pressure to bear on our respective caucus organizations and leaderships.
I agree with the thrust that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West has developed over the last ten years on this matter. He has been a leader in these matters. He has correctly pointed out on every occasion he has been able to find in the House how we have cheated ourselves of a perhaps much different kind of administration in the House of Commons. I am delighted that he has again had an opportunity to put forward his message. I am pleased to inform him that in point of fact the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure did take into account the representations he has been making over the last ten years. It did put some effort into a discussion of the problem. It has come down with a report which we believe is clear, concise and acceptable to Members on all sides and, hopefully to the Party leadership on all sides.
I hope that when the new Parliament is called into being one of the first items will be, not the calling of the old forum of the Commission of Internal Economy but, instead, a recognition by the new Prime Minister that as an interim step the commissioners of economy should be expanded by calling on Members of the House of Commons who are Privy Councillors, but not necessarily Members of the Cabinet, to serve on this committee, and that at an appropriate time a Bill will be brought forward to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act to allow Members who are not Privy Councillors to sit on this committee as well, the way the committee has recommended.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter this debate on Motion No. 115 of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I too should begin by sharing the concern expressed by my colleague about the loss to this House and to Canada of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West who will not be returning after the next election. I too share the view that he has made a great contribution to this place and to the parliamentary life of Canada. I regret that we will not have the benefit of Hon. Member's wisdom and sage advice from time to time, as we have had in the past. I have served on a
number of committees with the Hon. Member. He has always been an excellent Member and has made a great contribution, whether it be on the finance committee, miscellaneous estimates or any of the others he has served on so ably. His contribution in this House has been excellent. He has been here for well over 20 years. It is a shame to see him lost to the people of Canada.
With regard to his motion, it is in some ways precluded or superseded by the actions that have taken place by the Special Committee on on Standing Orders and Procedure to which my friend from Kenora-Rainy River referred. There is a report outstanding which deals with the question of the Commissioners of Internal Economy. It makes recommendations with which I believe there is a great deal of sympathy throughout the House. Restudying the issue, as suggested in the motion before us today, would be somewhat redundant in that that job already has been done by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures.
Quite frankly, I share the view of my friend from Kenora-Rainy River and my friend from Edmonton West that there is a necessity to change the composition of the board of internal economy. As has been stated, there are obviously some problems with that in that the current situation effectively puts the Government in charge of the spending of taxpayers' money. The spending of taxpayers' money is certainly involved in the administration of the House of Commons. The Government includes Privy Councillors, the Cabinet, and is in many ways synonymous with the Cabinet. Since it is the President of the Privy Council who is responsible for carrying through the estimates of the House of Commons, along with the Speaker, it falls on the shoulders of the Government to carry out this responsibility. The situation has evolved where the board of internal economy includes only Members of the Privy Council who sit in the Treasury benches.
I suggest, as did my friend from Kenora-Rainy River, that there is certainly room and latitude for change in this area. I believe, and I am sure that Members who are here today, as well as those who cannot be with us, would certainly agree, that the whole question of parliamentary reform, including the parliamentary responsibility for its own spending and its own internal decision-making, is something with which we should be moving forward.
As my friend from Kenora-Rainy River mentioned, the ninth report of the special committee puts forward several recommendations. The fourth and fifth recommendations deal most explicitly with the matter before us today. The fourth recommendation is "that the House of Commons Act be amended to restructure the board of internal economy". The committee members in their report went on to say that they did not feel it is appropriate for only Cabinet Ministers to be responsible for the internal management of the House of Commons, that the House of Commons is a community of many interests and this should be reflected in the way the commissioners are appointed. That is certainly true.
If Parliament is to become more responsible and respected in the eyes of the Canadian public, it is necessary that it
June 18, 1984

assume more of the responsibilities for its actions. This means a reduction in the power of the Government over the House of Commons, or the Government in relation to the House of Commons. However, I think quite frankly that that is a good thing. I think it is a good thing that the House of Commons be seen to be taking more responsibility for its own actions, and that Members of Parliament as individuals be seen to play a greater role in Parliament. I would like to see these changes take place.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



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 thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)), Motion No. 5 (Mr. Allmand), and motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)).
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to make a ruling on the point of order that is outstanding with regard to Bill C-9. I would like to thank Hon. Members for their contributions to the consideration of the admissibility of Motions Nos. 93 and 94. The Chair has given serious consideration to the argument with respect to the review committee's powers. I still have serious reservations about the admissibility of these motions because they appear to go beyond the scope of the Bill as agreed to at second reading. Nevertheless, the contributions of Hon. Members were sufficiently persuasive that I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Accordingly, Motions Nos. 93 and 94 will be grouped with Motions Nos. 95, 96 and 97 for debate and shall be voted on separately.
Before Private Members' Hour began, the House was considering the report stage of Bill C-9. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) had the floor. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much having to take part in yet another debate on the security legislation which is before us. It is a very monstrous piece of legislation and one which threatens
Security Intelligence Service
the security of Canadians in the guise of attempting to protect the security of Canadians.
I would like to deal with this all-embracing, ill-defined, enormously mistaken and ill-thought-out part of the legislation which contains the definition of the words "threats to the security of Canada". Such threats have been far too broadly defined. The legislation is wobbly. It is not careful and it is not precise. Its result is that normal, law-abiding people who pose not threat at all to the security of Canada can be targeted for all means of surveillance.
Let us look at what is stated in the legislation. Under the subtitle "Duties and Functions of Service", Clause 12 of the Bill reads as follows:
The Service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary, and analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada-
Turning to the definitions clause which is Clause 2, the relevant portion of that clause reads as follows:
"threats to the security of Canada" means
(a)	espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the
interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such
espionage or sabotage,-
I note, however, that espionage and sabotage are not themselves defined and that the interests of Canada are not defined. They could include economic interests or any number of interests apart from vital issues of national security. Paragraph (b) of the relevant portion of Clause 2 reads as follows:
-foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,-
Does that mean any one person? What does clandestine or deceptive mean? It is not defined. "Foreign influenced" is a very, very broad expression that could involve people belonging to international organizations. Paragraph (c) reads:
-activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property-
Note how broad that is. It does not include only threats to life and physical security but also threats to property. These could be trivial threats to property as well as serious ones. The paragraph continues:
-for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state,-
Again, this includes the whole world and any kind of political objective, even though it may be a very legitimate one. paragraph (d) reads:
-activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately-
And "ultimately" is a word that we might well dwell upon.
-to lead to the destruction or overthrow by by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,-
There follows a paragraph which exempts people who are engaged in lawful dissent or lawful political protest but, contrary to the wild, woolly and broad definitions under "threats to security," the exemptions are very narrowly defined. This paragraph reads:

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
-but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjuction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).
Not very many things fall under the exemption category whereas a great many things constitute a threat to our security.
This ill-defined clause has been kept in the Bill despite cries of protest from civil liberties organizations, church organizations and many others. Hearings have been held on this matter and there have been protests. My own Party has protested this clause most vigorously, strenuously and in great detail. The net has been cast too broadly.
Foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada could be activities which have nothing to do with terrorism, espionage or anything else that constitutes a serious threat to the security of the country. When dealing with the reference to political violence, the McDonald Commission recommended that the word "serious" be added. Even that word was not included. We are therefore faced with a definition section that is quite dangerous to those engaging in lawful political discussion.
I would like to refer to some critical remarks that have been made by the Canadian Council of Churches on this matter. I think these remarks are very good both in their philosophical approach and in their very precise analysis of particular clauses. The Canadian Council of Churches represents an enormous cross-section of the religious community within Canada. Member churches include the Anglican Church in Canada, the Armenian Church, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, the Disciples of Christ, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church in America-Canada Section, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Reformed Church in America, the Society of Friends, the Salvation Army and the United Church of Canada. These churches collaborated to come up with what, in my opinion, is an excellent critique of the Bill.
The philosophical point raised by members of the Canadian Council of Churches which I think is well worth considering in our debate today is the difficulty of attaining security, and the very fundamental questions that arise and must be asked. What or whom is the Government seeking to secure against what kind of threat and by what means? There are simply no easy answers to these questions.
Members of the council warn against very heavy handed measures which are intended to secure the lives and communities of Canada but which may not do so. They call the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" vague and uncertain and hence excessively broad in effect. They are particularly concerned about the broad interpretations of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 2 to which I have already referred. I shall read that concern from the report:
Our submission is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service could construe lawful church activities, for example in mission work and/or lawful church and community activities, including development education, peace advocacy and human rights defence as falling within these definitions, and hence to determine previously lawful activities as threats to the security of Canada.
This is an extremely serious charge which has been made by the mainstream Christian churches of our society. They say that according to these loose and woolly definitions, their own peace activities and missionary efforts could be construed as being threats to the security of Canada. Let me explain how this is so.
With regard to Clause 2, paragraphs (a) and (b), they are concerned about the vague phrase "the interests of Canada". What are the legitimate interests of Canada and who defines what they are? Can we distinguish the interests of Canada from the interests of Canadian citizens? Could there be a legitimate conflict among the citizens of Canada as to what Canada's interests are? They cite, for example a visiting foreign finance minister from a country in which churches have carried on mission work for many years. Suppose the finance minister requested a private meeting with church officials and that meeting took place. Because the meeting was private, it would then be considered clandestine and perhaps deceptive. He may wish to decrease his country's dependence on Canadian exports, but increase Canadian foreign aid-a very laudable objective in our opinion, but certainly not one which the Canadian Government would promote.
The visiting foreign minister might enlist the assistance of Canadian friends in the churches in Canada. Therefore, the meeting could be construed as foreign influence because he comes from a foreign country. It may be detrimental to the interests of Canada if the interests of Canada are seen in a very narrow, economic fashion. It may be in the interests of Canada to exploit all foreign countries to the hilt. That is a horrendous but, nevertheless, very possible definition of the interests of Canada. The meeting might be classified as deceptive if it had not been clearly specified presicely what the meeting was about. If the meeting was given a loose definition to the press, or to other people, that it was to be about missionary work, it could then be included in the clandestine and deceptive category.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I must advise her that her time has expired.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, could I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to finish my remarks.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member seeks the unanimous consent of the House to continue her speech. Is there unanimous consent?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, one of her colleagues made exactly that same speech less than one hour ago. Therefore I withhold my consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).
June 18, 1984


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, normally Canadians are said to be rather dull and not politically active. In fact, Canadians have generally been described as being pretty grey. When looking at the legislation which the Government is introducing, an observer from another country or from another planet would surely come to the conclusion that underneath this facade, or this reputation which Canadians have, they must be pretty dangerous animals. They must exist in tremendous turmoil underneath the surface. They must be plotting and they must be active in terrorist organizations. And, they must be concerned with pulling down, by violent means, the state.
The Bill before us treats this country and Canadian people as though subversion is running rampant. We must guard against it. There is a tremendous danger to the security of our lawful form of government which requires a secret police force with tremendous powers so that this widespread subversion can be stamped out. But, it is absurd to assure that Canadians are subversive folk and terrorist people, that we have a tremendous history of subversion and terrorism in this country, and that the Government needs the type of legislation it is presenting to us today.
In this year of our Lord 1984, a year made famous by George Orwell in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, we find being brought to life in the Bill things about which George Orwell warned. Particularly, in the area of definition, we find the thoughts of George Orwell coming to life.
This Bill allows the Government far-reaching powers. The definitions are so loose that practically any political activity that attempts to create some change can be deemed to be against the best interests of Canada and the Canadian Government. Farmers who protest high interest rates and farm bank-ruptices; workers involved in strikes or demonstrations; peace activists signing petitions; members of churches involved in raising funds for other countries in which dictatorships of the right or the left might exist; can all be considered, under the broad definition of this legislation as subversive. People can have their telephones tapped, medical files looked into, legal files snooped into, and be subjected to all sorts of activities that would normally be associated with a police state. People who are involved in very legitimate political activities could be subjected to acts which would normally be found in a police state, whether of the right or of the left persuasion.
I mentioned George Orwell earlier because in much of the debate which surrounds Bill C-9, we find Orwellian thoughts being expressed, and the type of double-think about which George Orwell warned. It seems very curious to me that the Government set up the McDonald Commission to look into the alleged illegal activities of the RCMP and to offer some remedies in order that the illegal activities which were being performed against Canadian citizens would not occur in the future. The McDonald Commission went through that long, arduous process, and what was the result? A Bill was introduced by the Government which would legalize the infringements which took place against the individual civil liberties of Canadians. The Government used the excuse of the commis-
Security Intelligence Service
sion to look into attacks on the civil liberties of Canadians. It used the commission as an excuse to legalize those very activities the McDonald Commission was originally set up in an attempt to protect Canadians from. It is Orwellian doublethinking that a government, on the one hand, would introduce a Charter of Rights and be very proud of what it has given to Canadian people-the protection of religious and political freedoms, and the right to express those beliefs-and, on the other hand, take away those rights and freedoms with this Bill.
Unfortunately, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a big red ink spot on it. Our national symbol has been spoiled by a misguided person. However, this Bill is a black spot on our Constitution and on our Charter of Rights which is a thousand times more evil than the red spot which exists on that document. This is a black spot which removes the heart and soul of our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The red spot is only a spot of ink on a piece of paper. This legislation ushers in the night-a dark period for Canadians.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the definition clause. My colleagues in the Conservative Party and in the New Democratic Party have expressed over and over again in this House the dangers which exist in the Bill. I am sure the Government, and the Minister responsible, will say the examples were are using are far-fetched, that they are not going to spy on people we are concerned, and perhaps raising money for some cause in El Salvador. Of course, they are not going to start keeping files on people who march in peace demonstrations, or on farmers who use their tractors in blockades as a way of protesting high interest rates and farm bankruptcies. The Government will say these are far-fetched examples.
It might be true, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister and the present Government might not use these powers or interpret these powers in such a wide way. I expect those Hon. Members are honourable and decent people and will not needlessly go out and use what we consider to be illegal activities on their fellow Canadians. I am not certain, however, Mr. Speaker, of their capacity to control those men and women who will be hired to man this organization. I believe the Government and that Minister have a long record of not being quite capable of handling the people they are supposed to be in charge of.
Our view, Mr. Speaker, is that we are creating a monster which is going to have a life of its own and the political masters of that monster are going to be quite incompetent to controlling it, as they have been incompetent in controlling other parts of their bureaucracy. Other parts of their bureaucracy have grown, inflated and achieved a life of their own and have swallowed up their political masters. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, we are creating a monster here which is going to be much more fearful than any of the bureaucratic monsters which the Government opposite has created. It is going to create a secret police bureaucratic monster by which numerous individual Canadians are going to be swallowed up, and perhaps destroyed in terms of their individual lives, because that
4752

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Government opposite cannot control the people of whom it is supposed to be the political master.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to continue for a few more minutes to complete my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member time to continue his remarks?


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill C-9 I cannot but help think that the measures proposed in this Bill by the Minister and by the Government are probably more in line with that old medical maxim that "cure is more dangerous than the disease".
I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, I have probably had more letters from constituents and concerned Canadians about this Bill than I have received about any other piece of legislation I have had to deal with in this House since I came here, and it is little wonder. The Minister himself has been required to attempt to justify the provisions of this Bill to a greater extent than any other Minister, of which I am aware, in dealing with any other piece of legislation in this House. It is little wonder, Mr. Speaker, when one takes a look at the press interpretations of how this Bill would be applied and how it could be interpreted in the future once it passes through this House.
Let me give an example of the way the press has described, not only what is contained in the Bill but what the Minister has said about how the Bill could be implemented, and that certainly gives me great concern. I believe the same concern is shared by constituents across the country who have written to me and other Hon. Members. For example, in the Montreal Gazette on May 30, 1983, the headline reads, "Kaplan warns the Peace Movement could be probed". The Globe and Mail on May 10 stated, "A New Security Agency can Break the Law". The headline on the Vancouver Sun on May 24 reads, "A Shocking Bit of Business". It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, as I read those headlines myself, before I had the opportunity to go through the Bill to any great extent, I wondered what the Minister and the Government were trying to do in terms of the civil rights and liberties of the citizens of this country.
I have several letters here I am sure would be of interest to the Minister, because I believe they adequately express the sentiments of a cross-section of people who have written to me. I will read one from-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. However, I should remind the Hon. Member that we are now debating Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which have been grouped for debate. It would be helpful to the Chair, as is the practice in the House, that when Hon. Members rise to
speak on debate they perhaps indicate to the Chair what motions they are directing their remarks to. In that way the Chair would be in a position to evaluate whether or not the Hon. Member's remarks are relevant to the motion.
I have been listening attentively to the Hon. Member who now has the floor. His comments really are of a general nature. He is quoting newspaper articles and letters. That is hardly, I must say, pertinent to motions, most of whose objects are to delete clauses, and one which strives to modify certain articles. I would invite the Hon. Member, therefore, to be more pertinent to the motions now before the House, if he would please do so.


Neil Young: Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. I was addressing the concerns which people have about Clause 2, the definition of "threats to the security of Canada", and how the Government and the new security service could be inclined to interpret that particular Clause of the Bill. I certainly was speaking in a general sense, because my constituents, generally speaking, are not lawyers. They do not understand the legal interpretations which may be given strictly to these Clauses of the Bill with which we are concerned. However, I thought it important that the Minister, and Hon. Members in the House, understood the general concerns about the direction in which the Government may or may not go.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair, of course, has no intention whatsoever-and it is not permissible-to debate with the Hon. Member or to participate in the debate. However, the Hon. Member is surely knowledgeable of the process of passing legislation in the House. There are circumstances in which the Hon. Member may make comments of a general nature regarding the principles of a bill and to the contents of other clauses. I must ask the Hon. Member to be relevant and pertinent, and speak strictly to the motions now before the House. I am sure I will have his support in that objective.


Neil Young: Unfailing support, Mr. Speaker. Clause 2 of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, provides the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" as follows:
(a)	espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,...
Or:
(b)	foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,...
Again, Mr. Speaker, it would include:
(c)	activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state-
It also included activities directed toward undermining by covert and unlawful acts or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established government in Canada, but it
June 18, 1984

does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e). I could go on but I think that suffices to give you the flavour of the things we are concerned about.
The Canadian Council of Churches, including such churches as the Anglican Church of Canada, the Armenian Church in North America, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church in America-Canada section, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Reformed Church in America-Ontario Clas-sis, the Religious Society of Friends, the Salvation Army, and the United Church of Canada, have all expressed their concern that the definition of threats to the security of Canada is vague and uncertain and hence excessively broad. They expressed the view that they are particularly concerned about the effect of broad interpretations of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 2, the clause we are dealing with at the present time. Their submission was that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service could construe lawful church activities such as mission work and/or lawful church and community activities, including development education, peace advocacy and human rights defence as falling within these definitions, and hence to determine previously lawful activities as threats to the security of Canada.
With regard to Clause 2(a) and (b), there is much concern with the vague phrase "the interests of Canada". What are the legitimate interests of Canada? Who defines them? Are the interests of Canada distinguishable from the interests of the citizens of Canada? Could there be a legitimate conflict among the citizens of Canada as to just what Canada's interests are? These are the kinds of things we are seriously concerned about, and it was in that light that I referred to other general concerns. For example, in paragraph (b), we should consider that a visiting foreign Finance Minister, from a country where churches have carried on mission work for many years, requests a private meeting with Canadian church officials in Canada to discuss Canadian aid and trade policies. If he wishes to decrease his country's dependence on Canadian exports while maintaining or increasing Canadian aid to his country-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is the third time I have heard that speech.


Neil Young: It may be the same speech but it is worth repeating if it gets the message through his tiny ears.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on Clause 2. Members are well aware, and I suggest that most people who are watching are aware as well, that we are dealing with the definition clause. In the short five years I have been in Parliament I have discovered that these clauses are frequently the key to any legislation. Any parliamentarian who takes his responsibility seriously would take a good, hard look at definition clauses. A constituent asked me
Security Intelligence Service
last week whether, if we take the security service out of the hands of the RCMP and place it in the hands of a civilian agency, as the Minister has asked us to do, that means that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would be eligible to be the director of this security service. Could that be done through and Order in Council without going through the House of Commons? Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what could happen. For people in the City of Calgary, in my region for the most part, the thought of that kind of appointment to this kind of a job was extremely bothersome. When you combine that principle with the looseness of definitions which currently exists in Clause 2, then I think you are asking for trouble in the future. The difficulty with Order in Council appointments is that they can always be made without public examination and for partisan purposes. They does not happen always, but the temptation is always there.
In the case of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service we might have a somewhat different view of the need to have really tight definitions. That is conceivable. The RCMP have made a couple of mistakes over their 100 years and more of existence. But it is an organization with a training program, a tradition, and a concept of the law and its place in Canadian society. With loose definitions, an organization like that is not likely to overstep; in fact it is less likely to overstep the bounds. But when we are dealing with a civilian agency, with a director appointed in secret through Order in Council, then I suggest we are putting a tremendous amount of temptation in the hands of a government which sooner or later will make a partisan appointment. We have seen that happen with the CIA in the United States. We have heard suggestions, through literature and the media generally, that the appointment process for the CIA, and even for the FBI, makes the office holder feel some sense of being beholden to the political Party that makes the appointment. Someone said we changed Ali Baba, but we still have the same 40 thieves here on Monday as we had on Friday. If that is the case and the Government is going to use its massive majority to bring in time allocation, or closure, to ram this legislation down the throats of Parliament and put in place this civilian agency to which the Cabinet makes the appointments, then the only protection we have left is to tighten up the definition. We cannot have that temptation sitting here waiting to be exercised within a framework which excludes that agency from very little if anything.
If you read Clause 2 of this Bill, you find that it is conceivable that any Canadian who actively contributed to a movement to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan or Poland or Czechoslovakia, anyone who is predisposed to support that kind of a movement, according to an interpretation of these definitions, could be subjected to a complete and thorough security investigation by this agency. People may be investigated for their participation through the donation process or perhaps through their membership in a church that is involved in an internal conflict in another country. According to these definitions, any member of that church or anyone who contributed to the activities of that church can be legitimately investigated. Anyone who chooses to donate time or talent to a

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
group which gets involved in a conflict in another country could be subject to investigation.
The Minister wants the security agency to be allowed to scrutinize membership lists and to investigate every member thereon. In a democracy it is legitimate to have a Solicitor General who has that view of the world. I do not think that is the view held by the majority of Canadians. I suggest it is not the view which even 2 per cent of Canadians would hold. In my experience Canadians are a group of people who value their freedoms. They value their privacy and their approach to life, which is essentially a law abiding, co-operative approach. The thought that some hidden agency could begin to bug their telephones, open their mail and follow them is abhorrent. That is something which happens in totalitarian states like Russia. They have police forces which do that kind of thing. They have laws and rules which allow their police forces to do those kinds of things.
That is not our tradition, Mr. Speaker. If we are doing our job on behalf of the Canadian people, we should not allow the same old gang to put this Bill through by closure. We should amend this Bill. The RCMP should be in charge of security intelligence and there should be tighter definitions. I hope that every Member who stands in the next little while is going to re-emphasize the need for those tighter definitions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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 Standing Order 79(11) the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of amendments proposed to certain clauses in this legislation. This particular grouping of amendments is one of three groupings which would delete various clauses from the legislation and would not in fact amend those clauses. There are two other groupings of that nature, motions to delete. It is very difficult, in the context of a 10-minute speech at report stage, to do justice to the broad range of concerns which are reflected by these motions to delete. I should indicate that this particular grouping of motions to delete deals primarily with questions of a more administrative nature with respect to the functioning and operations of the security service. I will attempt to summarize the reasons for the motions to delete in the course of the next few minutes.
The motions deal with some seven clauses. The first two majors which are touched upon by the motions to delete are Clauses 3 and 7. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 3, the Governor in Council appoints the director of the new service. There is an indication of the length of the term of office of the new director. I made a motion suggesting that the director should only be appointed following a review of that potential appointment by a parliamentary oversight committee. That motion was ruled out of order by the Speaker. It certainly remains my view that Parliament should play a role in the decision on the appointment of such a key individual in the operations of the new service. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, the Minister should consult with Members on all sides of the House with respect to the appointment of such an important individual.
Clause 3 to which I referred is the clause which formally establishes the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and sets out its principal office location as being in the national capital region. I note as well that the Official Opposition tabled a number of amendments to Clause 3 which would maintain the security service within the umbrella framework of the RCMP, subject to stricter controls and a statutory mandate. As Members know, this Party supported that amendment in committee at second reading.
Clause 7 is a clause which deals with consultation between the director and the Deputy Minister with respect to warrants.
The primary purpose for moving to delete Clause 3 is that that clause formally establishes the service. It is our view that the establishment of this new civilian security service poses a serious threat to civil liberties. Rather than moving to set up a new bureaucracy that is secret, unaccountable and will have unprecedented intrusive powers which no other western industrialized country has granted to its security service, we should in fact be moving in the opposite direction.
There are a couple of clauses that are dealt with in these motions to delete that relate to the question of collective bargaining rights and the terms and conditions of employment for employees of this security service. I would note that,
June 18, 1984

pursuant to the provisions of Clause 9, despite the alleged protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the right to freedom of association, for example, which is supposed to be accorded not on a selective basis but to all Canadians, members of the new security service are told that they will not be permitted any form of collective bargaining rights. I think that flies in the face of the protection of the right to freedom of association which whould be accorded to all Canadians in this country. I have no doubt that that provision will be challenged in the courts under the provisions of the charter. I hope that that clause will be overturned. That does not in any way mean that provisions with respect to withdrawal of labour cannot be specifically dealt with in the context of this legislation, but certainly to deny any form of collective bargaining rights at the stroke of a pen is an abuse of the employees of this new service.
As well, Clause 10 of this Bill which deals with the oath of allegiance and the oath of secrecy which are set out gives us very serious cause for concern. What the clauses do is effectively to require that all orders, whether lawful or unlawful, be obeyed by the employees of the service. The oath of office reads as follows:
I,	, swear that I will faithfully and impartially to the best of my
abilities perform the duties required of me as (the Director, an employee) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. So help me God.
When I suggested that we add the word "lawful" to that oath to ensure that employees would not be called upon to perform illegal acts and would feel that they had taken an oath that binds them to perform such acts, that amendment was rejected by the Government, leaving open the question as to what sort of action it intends the employees and the director to perform in carrying out their shadowy responsibilities.
The oath of secrecy, which casts a complete veil of secrecy over all of the operations of the security service, 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.
What that does is effectively to bar an individual who believes there has been wrongdoing in the service from being able to report that unless his superiors authorize him to do so. 1 would just remind Members of the House that it was not until 1976 when Corporal Robert Samson blurted out in a Quebec courtroom that there were a few things that perhaps he had been required to do that the public might be interested in, and later when a couple of other former RCMP security officers came to the then Solicitor General and indicated that they had been required to perform illegal acts, that the McDonald Commission and the Keable Commission were established.
Of course, under this particular oath, that type of whistle blowing activity would not be permitted. That kind of accountability, which is so essential in a free and democratic society, would in fact be stifled.
Security Intelligence Service
The final major clause which is referred to in these motions to delete is Clause 14. That is the clause that permits the service to advise any Minister of the Crown on matters relating to the security of Canada that are relevant to the exercise of any power or performance of any duty or function by that Minister under the Citizenship Act or the Immigration Act.
What exactly are the powers that this new civilian security service will exercise pursuant to the Citizenship Act or the Immigration Act? I recall only too well the time when one of my constituents was questioned-indeed I would suggest gruelled-by members of the RCMP security service with respect to her political beliefs. This was a woman who had been active in Chile in support of the Government of Salvador Allende and had fled following the fall of that government. She was questioned extensively.
Is this the kind of advice that the new civilian security service will be giving to the Minister of Employment and Immigration or to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Citizenship Act?
In short, the purpose of these motions to delete is first, very candidly, to delete the clause which creates the service, because it remains our view that this service, instead of protecting the civil liberties of Canadians and the security of Canadians will in fact jeopardize those civil liberties and violate the fundamental privacy of Canadians, and indeed will itself costitute an attack on the national security of this country. How ironic that a Bill which is supposed to be protecting the fundamental civil liberties and securities of Canadians could turn out to be the biggest threat to those liberties and to security since the imposition of the War Measures Act in 1970!
I urge Members to vote to delete the clauses to which I have referred for the reasons I have briefly touched upon and, hopefully, to kill this Bill in its present form which constitutes such a grave threat to all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity once again to rise and direct some comments to the new set of clauses that we are presently debating. I must say that I have some real concerns about a number of those clauses. Some of the subclauses cause concern about just what the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will mean in terms of some of the fundamental freedoms which Canadians have always thought they had.
I recall a number of such instances from my own experience. Some friends of mine had discovered that the RCMP had been conducting all sorts of investigations about some activities that presumably I had been involved in. At the time I was pursuing some scholarly endeavours and had taken it upon myself to write to a variety of countries to obtain documentation and scholarly works in order to continue my academic studies. Since this material came from foreign countries it had to arrive at Customs as its point of access. The RCMP was carrying out all sorts of investigations and interviews with some of my friends and scholarly colleagues about what

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
activities I was involved in. Obviously the RCMP felt that there was something subversive about it. But my purpose was simply to write a number of papers on a variety of foreign affairs issues.
When I discovered that there were long lists, files, reports and briefs which various agents of the RCMP had submitted about my various activities, all of which were of a scholarly and academic nature, I began to wonder about the extent to which fundamental freedoms exist in this country. Of course I was pleased, as were all Members of Parliament, when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced and passed in the House, part of which included freedom of association. I believe that all of us believe very strongly about that. People who want to work together in organizations should be allowed the freedom to do so. Yet the Bill before us makes it impossible for employees of the new service to bargain collectively. This right has been denied all of the representatives of the new intelligence service. Again, this is something embodied in the Constitution of Canada, embodied in the freedom of association clause within the Charter of Rights. To think that we are being asked now to support a clause in this Bill that goes against the very charter that all of us supported in this House of Commons seems to be bordering on the ridiculous.
That is not the worst, Mr. Speaker. When you consider that my hon. colleague from Burnaby worked so hard in committee at a time when the committee was discussing the need of the agents of the security service to swear an oath of secrecy, part of which would suggest that they would never be permitted to comment on the affairs of the service and that they would be required to carry out unlawful activities as we have all come to know them, you might say, Sir, that surely we should not be asking members of this Security Intelligence Service to carry out illegal activities.
I must say that I was shocked when I first heard from the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that we were being asked to pass a Bill which suggested that members of the agency should be allowed to break into one's home, office or private property in search of information or intelligence material, and that it would be appropriate for agents to open first class mail at their will, having received a judicial warrant. We know how successful that is in terms of screening. Last year out of every warrant requested, virtually every single one was immediately approved. It is hardly the type of security poeple would accept as protecting their rights and freedoms. Breaking into private property, opening up first class mail, going into tax records, family allowance records and all Government documentation about an individual, having access to all private information, being able to tap telephones, and I can go on with a whole list of activities, is not in the best interests of the nation. Yet we are saying in this Bill that members of the Security Intelligence Service will be permitted to do all these things in the so-called best interests of the nation. That in itself leaves a lot to be debated.
In the clauses we are presently debating we are being asked to support the concept of individuals taking an oath of secrecy. The suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby to include lawful activities as part of this swearing in process was denied. It perplexes and concerns me that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) would want to permit members of this agency to carry out unlawful activity under the direction of the director or other officers within the Security Intelligence Service.
When you start hearing about these various areas which cause serious concern to those involved with civil liberties in Canada, with fundamental freedoms for Canadian citizens, innocent Canadians I might add, one has to wonder, because clause after clause these shortcomings are being brought to the attention of the Solicitor General. Virtually every clause we have debated to date, and there is a whole list yet to come in the days ahead, we will be identifying the concerns we have as parliamentarians. Yet not a single one of those concerns has been answered in this House. I am hopeful that eventually we will see Members opposite rising in their places to answer some of the concerns we have. Can they explain why asking people to take an oath of secrecy that will require them to carry out unlawful activities is something we should support? I would like to hear the justification for that. I would like to hear the justification that it is appropriate now for members of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to break and enter in pursuit of evidence, to open private mail and to get into all sorts of government confidential records. How can this be in the best interests of Canadians? How can this be in the best interests of creating an atmosphere of security in the country? This escapes me. I am hopeful and optimistic that Members opposite will shortly stand in their places and explain that we need not be concerned for these reasons. However, one does remain optimistic these days, Mr. Speaker.
In terms of the clauses we are presently debating, I must say that the points raised cause real concern, so much so that, if an adequate response is not provided, we will certainly have to vote against these clauses as they are brought forward.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on examining the amendments that came from committee and the proposed amendments here at report stage, I regret the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) did not include one to delete Clause 4. It is there that I find what is a very definite looseness in drafting as a result of an amendment put forward in committee. But because I am precluded from making any changes, since there is no amendment at this time, all I can do is to invite Hon. Members to look at the provision to see if the term "pleasure" applies during the second term.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to the fact that Motion No. 12 specifically refers to Clause 4 and in fact it would delete Clause 4. That will come in due course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point is well taken. For the information of the Hon. Members in the House, we are now
June 18, 1984

debating Motions Nos. 10, 16, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 35, which propose to delete Clauses 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 14.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will have to defer my point for another time, Mr. Speaker, because it concerns a clause not included in this group. I do not intend, as I have seen all too often this afternoon, to include everything but the kitchen sink in certain remarks, therefore, we will limit ourselves to particular things.
I am especially concerned about Motion No. 20 to delete Clause 7. I find it a little difficult when I see the provision stating that the director, who is to be in charge of this security service, has to consult with the Deputy Minister. What is consultation? Is it getting the consent of the Deputy Minister which regard to the operational policies of the service?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Something further is added regarding any matter with respect to which consultation is required by directions issued under Clause 6(2). Here again there is something odd. Any directions issued under Clause 6(2) which are not subject to the amendment at this time, if they are later on, ought to go before the review committee. What is the review committee to do with them? Is it to be a toothless tiger as the one proposed in Bill C-24 dealing with Crown corporations? Is it to table certain things in the House and in the other place with no direction on what to do with them? Presumably they will be here for information purposes.
I would have to ask the direction of the committee as to Clause 7(2). When there is a question of applying for a warrant under Section 21 or Section 23, the director or the person so designated will consult with the Deputy Minister before applying for the warrant or the renewal of the warrant. What for? Why does the Deputy Minister have to consent to the issuance of a warrant under Section 21 or Section 23? Is the director who is running the operation not sufficient? The director is responsible to the Minister. Will he run his shop or will he run it with the Deputy Minister riding on his shoulder like an old owl? These are questions which I have to ask. Why was the amendment put in?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They were all asked at committee and answered.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am outside the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. What is the purpose of the amendment? What sort of bureaucratic monster is being created? Is it to operate or is it not? I am looking at something which is before me. I am not looking at the present system wherein the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is operating the security agency, which is where my colleagues have decided that it should remain. I am looking at something which has been put forward now, a civilian agency. Presumably it is the result of government policy and of the government majority on the committee. Therefore, it is the entire responsibility of the Government.
Security Intelligence Service
For instance, I want to know from the Minister why the Deputy Minister, if the director is responsible to the Minister, has to be consulted with regard to special warrants. The Deputy Minister is already responsible to the Minister. Why does the director have this two-headed authority over him with regard to special warrants? Then, on top of that there is this bureaucratic excess. If there is to be a renewal, what would happen if the Deputy Minister was not around? Deputy Ministers do not sit in their offices or at home waiting for calls. Who is the designated official below the Deputy Minister? Who is to exercise authority?
If I were to be the director of this operation, I would supposedly be directly responsible to the Minister. Either I am or I am not. However, suddenly I find that the Deputy Minister will have a hand in the issuance of directions by the Minister to the director. Why? Why say that the director is responsible to the Minister? He is not. The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reports through the Deputy Minister. That is the case now. That was an aberration of some years ago. That aberration is being continued by the report coming through the Deputy Minister. I think one would require a specialist to be head of the security service, but he does not get to his Minister unless he goes through the Deputy Minister. There are so many hobbles placed upon him that the Deputy Minister has control of the written instructions which are to be given to the director.
I do not know whether it is the careful hand of bureaucracy coming into play. It did before. It should never have. Running the RCMP calls for a special skill. Running the security agency will require a special skill. Why do they have to be funnelled through a Deputy Minister? The responsibility is that of the Minister who has available senior specialists. Why have the Deputy Minister? That is the question which I invite the Minister to answer?
As an individual I am looking at what the Government is now proposing. I say that there is a fundamental fallacy. I will not say that my mind is forever shut on it, but as I see it now it is a fundamental fallacy. I would like the Minister to tell me, not just because it has happened for the past 15 years, why we are continuing that tradition. I say it was a mistake 15 years ago to have the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report through the Deputy Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member asked such a pointed question and a good one, I ought to take just a moment to answer it. I do not want to delay opposition Members, who I know are very anxious to prolong the debate, in their opportunity to speak.
There is a very good answer to the good question which the Hon. Member asked. I receive a large number of files every day from each of the four agencies within my Ministry. Usually they recommend one course of action. I have to deal with them very quickly. Some days there could be 20 to 25

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
different ones. They come from the Commissioner of the RCMP who has the status of Deputy Minister. They come from the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada who has the status of Deputy Minister. They come from the National Parole Board where there is a Deputy Minister with the status of chairman.
In each case I like to obtain an outside opinion about the advice being offered to me and the decision I am being asked to make. The outside opinion which I seek is that of my Deputy Minister. We have established in the Government of Canada over the last 14 years a secretariat made up of criminologists, sociologists and lawyers brought in from the Department of Justice and others. The secretariat has been specially set up to analyze all the documents that are being transmitted to me, all these requests for approval that are coming to me, and to give me an advice. I consider that advice to be very helpful. I do not think of it as being an extra layer of bureaucracy. I think of it as being very useful for a Minister to be able to respond promptly and get a broader picture than sometimes comes from the head of an agency. When I was designing the structure of the new security service, I wanted to be certain that that special input of secretariat-added guidance and advice would be there. That is the reason that the clause appears. With some of the other agencies that report to me, it is established by administrative directive or practice. However, I wanted the country to know about the secretariat, about the useful role it plays in giving advice to the Minister.
Consultation is just that. It does not mean that my Deputy Minister in the secretariat is suddenly responsible for running the RCMP or any other agencies. Consultation is just that. I consider it to be very valuable. I hope that the Hon. Member opposite will not vote to delete this very important clause.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have to make a comment about my colleague from Edmonton West. He has done what I consider to be almost the impossible. He got the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to stand up and speak on the security Bill. That in itself is worthy of commendation and shows what a distinguished and eminent Member my colleague from Edmonton West is.
I want to deal with this provision in this context. Mr. Speaker in his wisdom determined that motions and amendments proposed by our Party with respect to whether the aspect of a civilian intelligence agency as opposed to an agency which would be under the umbrella of the RCMP were not admissible. Mr. Speaker indicated that, in his judgment, that question would be resolved at second reading stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should caution the Hon. Member and bring the following to his attention, because there have been similar occurrences in the debate tonight which escaped my immediate attention. May I simply quote the last sentence of Standing Order 15(1). It reads:
No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
I appeal to Hon. Members not to debate in any way, shape or form the Speaker's earlier decisions. It is not in keeping with our practices and traditions. It is certainly not in keeping with the Standing Orders.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is a very interesting observation. I am simply stating a fact. I am not reflecting on it. If you want me to say that I agree that he has the right to make that decision, that is perfectly all right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am just making reference to that fact.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Standing Order is very clear: No debate. I invite the Hon. Member to continue his remarks on the motion now before the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I defer as always to the Chair. Let me pose a hypothetical situation to you with respect to the matter. Let me assume that a ruling had been made with respect to admissibility-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member make his remarks pertinent to the motion now before the House and not to the decision or conduct of the Chair.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I am not going to debate a ruling of the Chair now or at any time in the future. I am only going to say that this clause deals with the establishment of a civilian intelligence service in Canada. It would be the preference of our Party that that not be the case. We have suggested on different occasions, at second reading and in committee after hearing representations, that the security service be brought within the aegis and under the umbrella of the RCMP. I am going to discuss that because this is the only opportunity I will have to mention that fact because of certain occurrences that happened in a time past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no misunderstanding at all between the Chair and the Hon. Member. The only reservation I pointed out to him is the reference to the Speaker and the Speaker's decision, drawing the Speaker into the debate. If he leaves those out, everything will be perfectly in order. I invite the Hon. Member to continue his remarks. Once again I apologize for butting in.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In support of this motion with respect to the deletion of the provisions dealing with the establishment of a civilian agency, I want to tell you that this is the only way that we are able to demonstrate or manifest our opposition to the way in which the Government is proceeding in this instance. Other options have been shut out to us.
The Solicitor General indicated that he was prepared to listen to representations to try to make this agency responsive to public opinion. In virtually every instance, including this instance, he has refused to listen to the input we have received
June 18, 1984

with respect to this legislation. This is a good example. Who has spoken? Who has given evidence? Who are the people who suggested it would not be a bad idea to have this agency under the umbrella of the RCMP? They are not a bunch of lunatics. They are not a bunch of people who do not have the national interest at heart. There is a wide ranging group of people.
Let me point out some of the people who made representations and who said that the RCMP should remain involved, who say that the Government is wrong in taking the action it is taking, who say that the Government is trying to repudiate the RCMP by this legislation by saying they are not competent or capable of carrying on the security service of our country. Who are these people who are castigating the Solicitor General, the chief henchman of John Turner, the next Prime Minister of this country? This man will ostensibly give advice, along with the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) who tippy-toed over to Mr. Turner during the course of last Saturday's proceedings. Who are these people who will advise Mr. Turner about the way in which our secret service will operate in Canada? I take it that it will be the Solicitor General. What has the Solicitor General failed to listen to? He failed to listen to people involved in the administration of justice in our country.
By way of example let me point out that the attorneys general of all the provincial governments have been united on one thing, the proposition that the agency should remain under the aegis of the RCMP. The attorneys general of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have sent telegrams to the Justice Committee making their position known. The Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia submitted a brief to the Justice Committee and appeared before that committee. Among other things he said this:
It seems to me to make a lot more sense to build on the institutional credibility that is already established, to use the umbrella of confidence that there is there, and to direct it and make it an effective security agency and make it an accountable one. I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can be made an effective security force.
The Attorney General of Ontario, in a speech on February 7, 1984, had this to say:
But I find extremely unattractive and fundamentally unsustainable the assertion in this legislation that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would exceed a statutorily defined mandate, evade the formal external review mechanisms, thwart ministerial accountability and abuse its defined statutory powers. The history and tradition of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police suggests very clearly to me that once there is an end to the absence of governmental direction and responsibility, which gave rise to the RCMP wrongdoing, the force will respond willingly and effectively to the wishes of the Canadian people as reflected in the new legislation.
The Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan submitted to the Justice committee an extensive brief dealing largely with the separation of the security service. He said as follows:
There is no indication, however, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as it is presently being managed by its senior officers, is not being responsive to the needs identified by Mackenzie and MacDonald for flexibility and change.
Security Intelligence Service
Who else has spoken in favour of the RCMP? Mr. John Russel, Executive Director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, has spoken in favour of the RCMP.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), posed a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in committee. He asked the Solicitor General if he was satisfied with the operation by the RCMP of its security services. Do you know what the answer to that question was, Mr. Speaker? The Solicitor General himself said yes, that is so. He said that he was satisfied with the operation of the security service. Yet he has brought this legislation to the House in an attempt to protect the reputation, whatever it may be, of the Liberal Government and to protect the Government from the way in which it simply hung the RCMP out to dry at a time of crisis in the early 1970s without having any Ministers of the Liberal Government accept responsibility for the actions of the security service of Canada. Government Members are now attempting to create a civilian intelligence service.
I think the people of Canada are very interested in whether or not this is really the position taken by this Government under its new leader. They want to know whether or not Mr. Turner, his solicitor general and his minister of justice will continue this repudiation of the force which has the support and admiration of the overwhelming majority of Canadians. They want to know whether or not this force, which has brought such pride to Canadians over the years and which has played such a great part in the development of our country, and particularly in the development of western Canada, will be publicly repudiated by the Solicitor General who has said that this agency is not competent to carry on the security services of our country.
The attitude that is being taken by the Government is one which most Canadians will understand. It will be a factor when Canadians make up their minds whether or not they should support this Government at the time of the next election. I would like to explain why this is so. We are now seeing demonstrations of the arbitrary nature of the Government. Nothing has changed. The events of Saturday afternoon did not change a thing.
The Liberal leadership candidates spoke of parliamentary reform and how they will make Parliament more responsive. What is the first act of government Members when they return to the House of Commons? They invoke closure. We cannot even debate this matter to the extent it should be debated. We have before us a Bill that is limiting the civil liberties of Canadians and is putting Canadians in jeopardy because of the powers being given to this new agency.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of mentality exists among Liberal Party members who preach rhetoric about a brand new tomorrow during the course of a leadership campaign? They have said: "A new Jerusalem is in sight. All we need to do is find someone to succeed our present Prime Minister and everything will change. We will have a new responsiveness, we will have more access to our leader, we will make sure that democracy works and we will not have the country run by an

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
arbitrary few." What is the first thing government Members do? They come to Parliament and move closure.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, what the people of Canada are to understand? Is this the new regime that we shall come to expect? Is this the form the new leadership will take? Is this the brave new world we will experience in which democracy thrives and freedom of speech is encouraged? Is this a world in which people will be able to speak about the serious issues that face Parliament? No; government Members would like to shut debate down. They do not want to hear arguments presented as to why we should have a different kind of agency, one which carries on the tradition of honour that has existed in the RCMP, one that carries on with a sense of self-discipline and has the flexibility to expand its horizons. I grant you, Mr. Speaker, that we could have an agency, even under the RCMP-and indeed under the RCMP-that would allow for the enrolment of people who have specific expertise and competence to carry on the security services of the country. But no, government Members do not want to hear anything about this alternative.
The reason government Members do not want to hear about this alternative is very simple. They want to shut the history books on the entire background which has led up to this legislation. They do not want to examine in detail exactly what transpired with respect to the RCMP security service in the early 1970s. They do not want to re-examine what went wrong. They do not want to talk about ministerial accountability and responsibility. All they want to talk about is the perception of progress. They say: "We are going to create this new bureaucratic institution out of a bunch of civilian people. There will be a certain amount of review and accountability and we will not have the troubles that occurred in the past which were not fault of the Liberal Government, of course. They were all the fault of the RCMP, they were the bad guys." That is why government Members have come forward with this proposal.
I see that I only have one minute left, Mr. Speaker. When a Government is so insensitive that it will not listen to a reasonable alternative; when just before a federal election a Government is so insensitive that it brings in legislation which is an insult to a fine and respected force in our country; when on the eve of a federal election it invokes closure in order to force through a Bill which has serious consequences to the civil liberties of Canadians, this Party along with its new leader has lost its ability to carry on the governing of the country. I say that this demonstrates more than anything else its lack of ability and lack of competence to carry on after the next election.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to express some of the sentiments and some of the thoughts expressed by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I think there is much that he and other Hon. Members have said that should surely give government Members every reason to stop in their tracks and give very serious consideration to what in fact they are doing.
Near the end of the term of this Parliament we are seeing legislation being introduced that, to any fair-minded man or woman, is frightening in its implications regarding the personal civil liberties of Canadians. Yet we see this Bill being oozed through the Parliamentary process. In the last days of this Parliament, the Government is using its majority to enforce closure and to hammer the Bill through the House. It threatens to hold up other needed pieces of legislation that will help senior citizens, farmers and workers. These pieces of legislation are being bartered for our basic human rights.
In other civilizations and in other countries, men and women would be up in arms. The press would be screaming in headlines about what is occurring. I wish the cameras could pan over those desks across the way where the men and women of the Liberal Party do their correspondence and read their newspapers, while the other half of them sit at the sandwich counter ready to enter the House just to vote. Democracy and personal freedoms and liberties are going down the drain in such a nice, gentlemanly, parliamentary fashion. It makes me sick and it makes me outraged. It makes me sad that this horrendous piece of legislation with all of the threats it poses to ordinary Canadian men and women should, in such an orderly fashion, proceed through the normal channels toward its passage into law. It is a sad day for Canada. It is a sad day for Parliament. Surely the saddest of all is the reputation of the Liberal Government across the way.
I am rising in support of the motions which would delete Clauses 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14. I particularly, support the deletion of Clause 3. By deleting that Clause we delete the establishment of the secret service agency. The amendment which would delete Clause 3 as well as other clauses, is a very important amendment. However, most of my remarks will surround the motion to delete Clause 3.
My colleague from Burnaby has mentioned the reasons for which Clauses 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14 should be deleted. They are valid reasons. It is very unfortunate that in this process we have yet to hear one government Member stand up and justify the legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We were waiting for time allocation today.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Government Members will not take the time to take their noses out of the newspapers, pay some attention to what this legislation is about and what are its implications. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), has said that we are trying to obstruct Parliament and that we are trying to delay passage. Yes, I am trying to delay. I am trying to do whatever I can to stop this legislation from passing. It wrenches my guts to see the nice way, the parliamentary way, the gentlemanly way, in which this outrageous piece of legislation is being passed through the House. It amazes me that we can hardly get a rise out of Members opposite. How cool, calm and gentlemanly they are while killing the liberty of individual Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I stand flabbergasted.
June 18, 1984

The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has not addressed himself to the legislation. The only time we can get the Solicitor General on his feet is when he is clearing up some bureaucratic point. He has not stood in this House to justify why we need a civilian security force. He has not stood up in the House to indicate why more police powers are necessary. He has not indicated to the House whether there exists a real threat to Canada in terms of terrorists or subversives.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I did that at second reading.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I do not see any government Members standing up to justify the legislation. Of course, the so-called justification was made in committee. I am not a member of that committee.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, no. At second reading.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I expect the Government to give the justification to the nation in Parliament, where the whole nation can watch on television-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely the Hon. Member knows that the place for matters of principle is at second reading debate. Fifty-seven speeches were made on the subject which the Hon. Member is now urging us to speak on again-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. That is obviously an exchange in debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You were not here. That is the trouble.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I was here and I participated in that debate. Much of what I am saying now I said then, because there were not many government Members in the House to explain the legislation at that time. The Solicitor General is hauling in a red herring in an attempt to justify this legislation. That makes it even more obnoxious.
The Solicitor General has not stood to explain why he objected to the amendment my hon. colleague from Burnaby introduced. That amendment would ensure that the oath which is to be taken by the officers of the agency which is being established by this Bill, would be to carry out legal acts. The Solicitor General did not explain why he objected to having the word "legal" inserted in the oath. He has not given us the assurance that the agency will not become a bureaucratic monster which will swallow up the political masters. He has not given us any assurance that he and his colleagues are capable of holding in check the wide powers that this agency will have. He has not given the House any assurance that the Government is capable of controlling this agency. This Government has particularly proven how incapable it is of controlling other departments and other bureaucracies, bureaucracies which have swollen and swollen and swallowed Cabinet Ministers and the political masters of those departments.
After seeing the lack of performance in this House and the lack of justification by Members opposite 1 am more afraid than ever before. I do not think the Government is capable.
Security Intelligence Service
Personally I think Members opposite are honest, decent people who do not wish other people harm. However, I have very little confidence in their ability to administrate, to be on top of and in control of government. I have very little confidence in their ability to control the agency which the Government is creating. I am afraid that a monster is being created which, at some future date, government Members will regret. Unfortunately, it might then be too late.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with Clause 3 which is dealt with in the five or six motions that have been grouped for debate. In response to the last speaker, who was lamenting that government Members have not been speaking, to which the Minister replied that it was dealt with at second reading and that the amendment should have been made at second reading-


John Mercer Reid: He did not say that at all.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: After 57 speeches.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The problem was that debate was closed off at second reading and we were not able to introduce some of the amendments. When the amendments were proposed at committee stage they were dealt with and considered by the committee. Amendments were proposed at that time which were subsequently returned to the House and ruled out of order. The point I would like to make is that whenever Liberal Members take a fresh look at a problem, with people grouped around, they find the amendments to be totally satisfactory. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), formerly the Solicitor General during the period in which the RCMP allegedly got out of control, put amendments which the Cabinet rejected. That is the irony. A former Solicitor General with all his years of firsthand experience had his amendment rejected. Therefore, the Minister, with great respect, does not make sense in his objection.
As well during the committee stage, on one occasion independent government Members, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), when they looked at the amendments fresh without having received instructions from the Minister or the Cabinet, abstained from voting, and in some cases when there was a tie vote the chairman had to step in and save the Government. Indeed, even the chairman on one occasion voted with the Opposition. Now the Government is saying it will put in a fresh motion which will overturn the majority decision of the committee. If we could deal with Government back-benchers on a person-to-person basis, we could convince them on hard evidence. The committee did hear the witnesses. I am sure those Members would recognize that Bill C-157, which was the predecessor to Bill C-9, was worded so badly that in order to get itself off the hook, the Government sent it to a Senate committee. The Senate committee heard witnesses and made over 40 amendments to the Bill before it was returned to the House.
Clause 3 is actually the establishment of the service. Without saying it in so many words, it in effect creates a civilian

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
agency, to do the same work that today is being done under the aegis of the RCMP. The reporting mechanism is through the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Government position, in essence, is that there should be a separate civilian agency. Our position, and I believe it is also the position of the NDP, is that it should be left under the aegis of the RCMP.
Let us consider what the witnesses said. The Attorneys General attended the committee and said:
The provincial Attorneys General note that the need for a new separate security service is open to question.
The Attorney General of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have all sent telegrams to the members of the justice committee making known their opposition to a new civilian agency. The Attorney General of British Columbia actually came and gave evidence before us with respect to Clause 3. Among other things he said:
It seems to me to make a lot more sense go build on the institutional credibility that is already established, to use the umbrella of confidence that there is there, and to direct it and make it an effective security agency and make it an accountable one. I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can be made an effective security force.
The Attorney General for Ontario in a speech on February 7, 1984, said this:
But I find extremely unattractive and fundamentally unsustainable the assertion in this legislation that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would exceed a statutorily defined mandate, evade the formal external review mechanisms, thwart ministerial accountability and abuse its defined statutory powers. The history and tradition of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police suggests very clearly to me that once there is an end to the absence of governmental direction and responsibility, which gave rise to the RCMP wrongdoing, the force will respond willingly and effectively to the wishes of the Canadian people as reflected in the new legislation.
The Attorney General of Saskatchewan submitted an extensive brief dealing largely with separation of the security service. At page 14 he states:
There is no indication, however, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as it is presently being managed, by its senior officers, is not being responsive to the needs identified by MacKenzie and McDonald for flexibility and change.
This is the evidence of people who have real expertise in the area. It is evidence we heard at committee, the result of which came back to this House by way of amendments. That is why we plead with the back-benchers on the government side to simply read the record, because I believe if they did they would be prepared to turn to the Minister and say "Mr. Minister, with no disrespect to you, we do believe that we could accept these additional protections where there is doubt".
Mr. John Russell, the Executive Director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association said the following in his testimony in committee on May 10, 1984:
The Senate committee and McDonald commission cite essentially two reasons for civilianization. One is that the intelligence personnel of a security agency require different training and abilities from those RCMP officers have; and, secondly, the police hierarchy is incompatible with the strict process of review and control that is envisioned for a civilian security agency.
I think the lie is given to the first item by the fact that the RCMP security section is going to be given over to the new security service. So we are left with
the conclusion that either the RCMP does train competent personnel, in this case, or that the service will begin its life with unsuitable employees. In our view we would prefer that the Security Service, if there is to be a Security Service, should remain within the purview of the RCMP where threats to national security are more likely to be placed in a realistic context; that is, they will be assessed in relation to other criminal activity and not isolated.
I believe the coup de gras for the argument of the Government is that in the justice committee on May 23, 1984, the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) made a very important admission. I quote the question put to the Minister by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
The fact is, Mr. Minister, that for many months now-for many years in fact-since the revelations in the House of Commons in 1977 and the action which was taken consequently, the security service has been working as a part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The commissioner has been reporting to the Solicitor General effectively, competently and in a manner in which I am sure you would agree meets with your approval. You testify that this has been done in a manner which meets the appropriate sensibilities of the Canadian public. Is that not so?
The answer of the Solicitor General was, "Yes, that is so". There we have it, Mr. Speaker, right from the Minister's own mouth. The people working in security presently under the RCMP are meeting all of the needs of the Minister and, therefore, if our amendments were accepted, it could very easily be that the RCMP in the future would operate under the statutory sections covering court orders for warrants, the inspector general would monitor and keep tabs on what the RCMP were doing in that area, as well as the review committee, which consists of Privy Councillors who are not active in the House or the Senate. It would be very easy to amend this legislation in a step-wise fashion. This is really a revolutionary change as compared to an evolutionary change. When it is put in the context of how deeply so many people feel about the RCMP, and the trust they have in it, we just should not be making that move to a civilian agency.
I have had the moving experience, Mr. Speaker, of talking to many of my constituents who are from eastern European countries. Indeed, my neighbour for many years still has the tattoo on his arm. They speak from first-hand knowledge about how a separate civilian agency can get out of control. If we talk to those people from South America we find it does not matter whether the Government is an extreme left wing government or an extreme right wing government, they create secret services wich have the potential of growing totally out of control. As we know from our debate on the definition of "threats", particularly with respect to domestic subversion, this is a possibility, albeit this Minister does not intend that. It could happen just as Watergate developed in the United States, starting with President Kennedy. One can see how subsequent administrations increasingly took the power and abused it more and more, until Watergate occurred. That is what could happen here, Mr. Speaker and I sincerely ask Hon. Members opposite to take a good look at this, because just a few amendments could fix this legislation dramatically.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken in this debate on Bill C-9 because I wanted to listen to the comments being made by Hon. Members on both sides. I would like to try to put into perspective from my point of
June 18, 1984

view my own fears as to the direction in which this Bill takes us. I do not have to go into the minute detail of what is contained within the Bill at this point. The purpose of the amendments moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is to eliminate Clauses Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14. Those clauses are the heart, in many ways, of the proposal by the Government.
I was particularly interested in the content of a brief which was submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs by Allan Borovoy, the general counsel and Kenneth Swan, the Vice-President of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, because it brought to my mind a situation in which I myself was involved. When one reads the Bill and analyses the content, one comes to the conclusion that there is the possibility, if not the probability, for similar kinds of actions to occur in Canada. Mr. Borovoy in making his presentation said that the agency proposed by the Government, though better than the agency previously proposed, has far too much intrusive snooping power. He said that the use of electronic bugging, the surreptitious searches, mail opening and the invasion of confidential records, is frightening.
There are Hon. Members in this House who travelled with me on two occasions to the Soviet Union. I have been involved with and interested in the question of human rights as long as I have been an adult in Canada, because it is perhaps the single most important issue which confronts us. I remember being in the Soviet Union. I could not help feeling, as I read Allen Borovoy's submission, that the very things he was bringing to our attention are the things that cause those of us who visited the Soviet Union, officially and unofficially, to be most concerned.
I will tell you this story because I think it highlights my opposition to the Bill as it stands. I remember speaking with people in their apartment in Moscow and the telephone rang- one ring. There was silence. They sent me a note, because they did not want to speak out loud, that that ring signified that they were being bugged-that very subtle ring on the telephone. They then went quietly into the hall, closing the door behind them, into the kitchen, and looked out the darkened window to view a vehicle sitting outside. The people in that vehicle were listening to the conversation we were having in that apartment. The conversation had nothing at all to do with the national security of the Soviet Union absolutely nothing. We were talking about mutual acquaintances. I was discussing with them their desire to leave the Soviet Union and come to Canada to be with relatives. I was discussing with them their application for permission to leave, just as you would discuss it with any friend at any time any place in the world. But the authorities there, under the aegis, if you will, of a law no doubt very similar to this one, had decided that I, being a foreign agent visiting with these people in their apartment-


Some Hon. Members:: Ha, ha!
Security Intelligence Service


Ian Deans: Listen, it is a very serious matter. For those of you who do not understand that, I urge that you listen carefully. When I visited there I did so out of compassion, out of concern for those people and people in similar circumstances all around the world. They were seen as a threat to national security and were under surveillance. Who were they? One was an engineer, one was a professor, one was so old as to hardly be a threat to any one at all, but they were being kept under surveillance because of legislation-in a totalitarian state legislation does not really matter a whole hell of a lot, but they were kept under surveillance because they were seen having discussions with people from outside of the country about matters the Government felt were not in its best interests and therefore they were deemed to be a threat to the security of that country.
I am not suggesting for one minute that there is anyone on either side of this House who would willingly or knowingly condone that kind of action in Canada-not one of us. But I also know that the checks and balances necessary to guarantee that this cannot occur do not appear in this Bill. That is what is wrong with the Bill. That is what is wrong with the whole process. You have to understand the fear. You have to realize what it is like to know that someone wrote you a letter but it was never delivered, and that that was not the fault of Michael Warren. You have to appreciate what it is like to live in a system where the thing you fear most is not that you will be caught breaking the law but that the Secret Service, in whatever form it takes, will be given the kind of power that enables it to foist itself upon you, to infringe upon your life and to take action against you even to the point of trumping up charges in order to get you out of the way and put you in jail.
I say to you that that is not foreign to Canada. We all know now that those kinds of things have happened here. That is what frightens me about this legislation and its passage. That is why I want to see some better measures introduced which will guarantee that no one can run away with this power we are vesting in these individuals. With all the best intentions in the world the Secret Service does what it thinks is best in the circumstances. There is no guarantee that you need to be considered as breaking Canadian law in order to be under surveillance under this Act. Well, that is wrong. That is why we are taking so much time trying to convince the Government, and trying to improve the legislation. You have to have been there to understand it, and I have been there. I understand it and it is wrong. It is dangerous. It is frightening. It can happen in the best circumstances with the most well-intentioned individuals. Therefore, we have to tighten up this Bill.
I see you are indicating that my time is about up, Mr. Speaker. It is not impossible to have a Watergate here with the expansion of power to be taken on by those doing what they believe is right but which is totally outside of what is acceptable within our society. Neither is it impossible to imagine circumstances such as those I saw when I went to Moscow. For those reasons, if for no others, I say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), because I know of his interest in matters such as the ones I have raised, that he should give some more

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
serious thought to whether or not there are better ways to achieve the ends that he and we all desire.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has spent any time in Regina cannot fail to be aware of the "Barracks", as they were called in my day, and the respect held for that particular insitution. I can recall as a small choir boy being asked to go to the chapel at the "Barracks". There was only one "Barracks" in Regina at that time, as we knew it. It was a "B" Barracks, the RCMP Barracks. Evens as a small boy I felt that it was a signal honour to be asked to appear on Sunday morning at service there and see the scarlet coats on either side of the aisle. Having gone through that experience we thought our choir was a pretty special one.
1 can also remember one of the Mounties who came to our Sunday school regularly. We knew he was a Mountie, though he came in mufti, his civies. One particular day he had a ceremony after Sunday school and he came in uniform. You can believe me when I tell you that when he walked in that morning he clinked in. You could hear the spurs and you could see the scarlet coat. We were in a special Sunday school class. I tell you that because it represents for me the feeling that I think is pretty general in Canada. It was very strong in Regina and I think it is very strong across the Prairies. I do not think it wanes on the way toward the coast. The RCMP is a respected, honoured force in Canada. It is a force for justice and right in which the Canadian people can have confidence. My early experience in Regina left with me those memories of the RCMP.
I feel that we should not remove from that force a function which they have been performing and are still performing, albeit with problems. The problems can be dealt with. They are retaining their respect, honour and the confidence which they have earned since their establishment at the end of the nineteenth century as the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.
Through the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) the RCMP are accountable to the House and to the people of Canada. For a short period in 1970 when, due to some activities which were thrust on them, they were directed to perform, or in any event occurred, there was a slight shudder in that confidence. However, they retained that confidence because of the great fund of goodwill and confidence the Canadian people have in the RCMP.
We are being asked to take away one of the functions of the force which enjoys such confidence. I admit that its prime function is the maintenance of law in areas where there is no other force of law available to the municipality or province, and certainly in the Territories and in the Yukon. We are being asked to take away from them a function which has been thrust upon them since the Gouzenko affair, during which they behaved with absolute scrupulousness and fairness. They reported to the Government of the day. The Royal commission carried out its work and the RCMP came out unblemished for their performance in that particular operation. Since then they
have had to take on the function of the intelligence service guarding Canada against subversion and now, a new phenomenon which we all deplore, terrorism, which is a form of subversion, I suppose. Subversion means to turn people against authority. Terrorism is to frighten people so that they will lose confidence in authority.
Under Clause 3 of this particular legislation we are being asked to remove from the RCMP a function which they have performed most nobly. I have some difficulty understanding the manner in which the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has been dealing with this legislation. I suppose it may be that the Rules of the House require him to do it in this manner. He tried to have the legislation hoisted for six months. That did not work so he thought he would take it out piece by piece, clause by clause. He has done that. He was forced to do that by the Rules of the House. We now have before us six or seven motions. One of them refers to the establishment of a separate force.
In my earlier comments I said that there could be means of dealing with the problems which are presently being encountered by the intelligence branch of the force. We are aware of them. We are aware that there are those who are not members of the force who are within that intelligence branch. They do not know whether they are fish, foul or herring. Surely there is a method of establishing a personnel policy within the intelligence service which could be different from the personnel and promotional policy of the force itself. When the RCMP speak about the "Force" there is always a capital F in front of that word. They say it with meaning. They mean what they say. Surely there is a means of establishing within the force an intelligence service which would be under the general administration of the commissioner, under an assistant or deputy commissioner if you wish, having rules of promotion and drawing, where possible, from likely candidates within the force itself and shifting them into the intelligence force if they wish to be so shifted. We could also recruit civilians who have not gone through the training at Regina but who have demonstrated their ability in one way or another for this particular form of activity. That can be done.
I am sorry to see that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, because I had hoped to be able to induce some Members of the Government to stand up and express some views about this force. We managed to provoke the Solicitor General to his feet. Perhaps we could get another Member to express his heartfelt views about this force and whether it should be within the RCMP or as a separate force.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, in debate this morning we heard a good deal with respect to Motion No. 1 having to do with the title introduced as it is in Clause 3 of the Bill. It may be said that that debate was somewhat initiated by reason of an amendment introduced by our Party suggesting that the title of the Bill might more properly be the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Security Intelligence Service. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and others have already indicated the cogent reasons why that force might still be the adequate agency to conduct the
June 18, 1984

intelligence service for our land. It was pointed out by the Attorney General that no cogent reason has really been established yet in the House as to why we should have a civilian security service. That being so, it is a sad day when closure is introduced so soon after the Government side has elected a new leader without a seat in the House, and without really having an opportunity to consider in any degree of depth the Bill that is before us for consideration today.
The Globe and Mail editorial of April 24 last reported that, although Bill C-9 has fewer flaws than its predecessor, Bill C-157, it should not be allowed to pass in its present form. This was in an editorial in one of Canada's national newspapers. It pointed out that Bill C-9 would still continue to grease the wheels of the domestic intelligence service. This domestic intelligence gathering force, which is supposed to have the responsibility of protecting the public, will gather information at the expense of the rights of the public.
Unfortunately, we must agree that there is a need for an intelligence service in this troubled land. It is also the responsibility of the Government to ensure that Canadians are protected by such an intelligence service, that our national interests and security are protected. However, should that protection be at the expense of public rights and liberties that Canadians have a right to expect? While that protection of security is a responsibility of the service, in no way can it be said that our rights and liberties should be prejudiced and diminished by reason of the need for that protection.
Bill C-9 still empowers its agents with the judicial warrant system to demand, seize and detain first-class mail, examine the health records of Canadians and violate the confidentiality of income tax returns. The agents are still able to tap telephones, but the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) only says that the review committee will blow the whistle on the agency as soon as it steps out of line.
Canadians have been burned before. The agency, believing to be acting in the best interests of the country, rode rather roughshod over large numbers of Canadians and over the civil rights and privileges of ordinary Canadians.
Bill C-9 does not ensure that this will not happen again. Critics of the Bill are not instilled with confidence in the review committee or even in politicians or political hacks. The review committee would be made up of Privy Council members who do not sit in the House of Commons or Senate, but Privy Councillors nonetheless who are appointed by the government of the day. They will be paid by the Government. There is an old adage which states that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Perhaps at this stage I am not permitted to expand on the benefits of the RCMP or its history, but if there is any greater risk than placing the caretaking of the intelligence service in the RCMP, it is leaving it in the hands of politicians.
Bill C-9 makes no provision for an all-parliamentary review such as exists in West Germany or in the United States. Nor is the Solicitor General fixed with a responsibility such as recom-
Security Intelligence Service
mended by the McDonald Commission of having knowledge and responsibility for the working of the intelligence service. The Solicitor General has put distance between himself and that agency. He has done this through a director and a review committee and has not given the faintest hint of any acceptance of an all-parliamentary overview of that director and the operations of his agency. That is left up to some persons who are appointed by the government of the day.
Even though there is a public demand which requires such an opportunity for an all-parliamentary review of an operation of such an agency, it has been denied to Canadians through this Bill.
Furthermore, despite all of the assistance offered to him by Opposition members and the witnesses who appeared at the committee hearings, the Solicitor General is either unable or unwilling to write a bill that would command the general national support of our people. Instead, he has introduced closure today, the first legislative day after his Party elected a new leader. He is the future Prime Minister but the Government, without the opportunity for its new leader to study this legislation, introduced closure. This is an arrogant approach by the Government. It is a sad day with respect to a totally incompetent Bill when it should take such action.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly prompted to make a few comments on this Bill by some of the remarks made by my colleagues, including the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills spoke of the manner in which the committee hearings were conducted. The statements and opinions expressed by individuals who appeared before the committee were almost unanimous in their recommendations for changes to some of the particulars of the Bill. He also stated that the recommendations have been ignored, which casts doubts about the entire question of having committee hearings into the subject.
This was characteristic of what recently happened with respect to the committee hearings on the Canadian Institude for International Peace and Security. When public hearings were held in that regard, 14 of the 14 witnesses who were quoted in a paper presented by an observor to the standing committee for its perusal stated that seven non-Canadian directors on the institute was too great a number. The Bill provided for eight Canadian directors and seven non-Canadian directors which these witnesses felt was too heavily weighted toward non-Canadian directors.
How did the standing committee deal with those recommendations? It simply ignored them. It took advantage of the Government majority to pass Clause 18 of that Bill as it stood. It allowed seven non-Canadian directors on a board of 15.
When the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills was speaking of a similar experience with respect to the security Bill, it prompted the question: Why do we hold hearings? The

June 18, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
most obvious reason would somehow be that it lulls the public into believing that it is having some participation in the Parliamentary preparation of a Bill, such as the security bill or the peace institute bill.
It is rather sad that a committee system within the House of Commons with representation of all parties, and to which Canadians look for a degree of wisdom and integrity, can be misappropriated to give a sense that something decent is being done when in fact there is no decency there. These thoughts were raised when the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills spoke.
I would rather think a Government that provides for committee hearings would also be prepared when it asks the public for submissions to listen to what the public is saying. There is a great deal of wisdom out beyond these walls. That may not appear to be the case to members of the Government, but that is a fact. I believe the least we can do if we are going to honour this institution, and if we are going to ask the citizens of Canada to respect the institution of Parliament, is to pay them the honour of listening to them when they speak.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) spoke of his experience in the Soviet Union a little over a year or two. Certainly he brought back some rather stark memories of my visit to the Soviet Union with others from this House in January and February. I think it is imperative that we ensure that our Canadian justice system and our Canadian security system does not fall prey to the type of misuse and abuse we see in totalitarian countries such as the Soviet Union. Citizens simply minding their own business or acting within the confines of the constitution of their country and breaking no laws can be the subject of heavy handed surveillance and heavy misuse of justice.
I believe it is almost imperative that security be left in the hands of the RCMP. If it is in hands in which Canadians do not have trust then its job is ten times, or many times more difficult. In fact, it may be impossible. We propose this be left in the hands of the RCMP. I know as I speak for constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen that I am expressing their wishes. If they had been available and free to appear before the standing committee hearings they would have stated that position.
I hope government Members will reconsider some of the positions they have taken, study the evidence before them, study the sentiments and opinions of the common people and the experts and change the legislation to conform more adequately to that which is required and desired by the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with this section of the Bill from a democratic point of view. In democracies Governments are elected to represent the thinking of the people. That is the way it was in the early days. At first everybody went to Parliament. As the population increased, this was impossible so representatives were sent. Representatives were supposed to represent the majority thinking of the people. But with this Government, we are getting
further and further away from that concept and closer and closer to a totalitarian concept where the Government thinks it has access to all wisdom, and the Government tells the people what is good for them. I find that in this Bill, and it is wrong in a democracy. Canadians are getting sick and tired of being told what is good for them, instead of the Government trying to find ways and means of doing what the majority of the people want.
I do not think there is any doubt the RCMP has been doing a good job. If the RCMP is incompetent and is unable to do the job, that is one thing, but when we come to actual evidence we find the very opposite. I want to put on the record some of the evidence from the Committee. This is a question and answer portion involving the critic for our Party, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). The Hon. Member for Vancouver South, our critic, wanted to find out whether the RCMP was competent and whether it was doing the job well. Here are some of the questions and answers which I think the public is entitled to know about:


John Allen Fraser: And the commissioner has remained responsible for the security service all during these tumultuous years.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes, he has.
He is referring to the years since 1978 and 1979. The Commissioner has been doing his job.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of the Conservative Party have read that question and answer into the record at least eight times today. Is there some rule against such a tremendous amount of needless repetition?


Mr. McCain:: Change the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The difficulty in this debate, at least in terms of the last two speakers which the Chair has heard, is that they have not been relevant to the clauses we are discussing. The rules are fairly straightforward with regard to debate at report stage. It has to be relevant. It cannot be a general debate on the principle of the Bill. I wonder if the Hon. Member who has the floor is able to tell us what clauses we are on.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point raised by the Hon. Solicitor General is hardly a point of order. Perhaps they should listen to these points; they still have not got home. The situation is the same as it was the other day when I said what we need is a carrier pigeon which has been crossed with a woodpecker, so that it will not only take the message over there but it will pound it into their heads. That is not happening. Surely democracy is not contrary to these clauses of the Bill we are discussing. Surely it is not. Now the Hon. Solicitor General wants to tell us what to say and how many times we can say it. That is just what I am trying to prove, that the Government is trying to tell people what is good for them. I do not want the Solicitor General to make my speeches for me. I will make my own. The people of Canada do not want the
ie 18, 1984

Government telling them what to do or what is good for them. They want the Government to reflect the thinking of the people in its administration.
The point was raised whether the service was bad. Was the service bad? That is relevant to this question. The Solicitor General said that it was not bad. I will refer to his exact words so that he will not raise another point of order. He said:
Yes, I think we have been very well served by Commissioner Simmons of the RCMP.
The Commissioner has done an excellent job. Then the Hon. Member for Vancouver South asked him whether the security service had been working as a part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Minister said: "Yes, that is so."
There is another point. The Hon. Solicitor General is saying that we cannot have one head and two branches. Look at his own Government. There are Ministers with two Departments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. This is the second time the Chair has tried to remind the Hon. Member to speak to the clauses which we are studying. Would the Hon. Member try to abide by report stage rules, that is, to be relevant?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are dealing with provisions now which in effect ask for the deletion of the clause that sets up a civilian intelligence agency. I think the debate on the part of many people on this side of the House has been extremely germane. In fact, we are the only ones who are speaking on this legislation. A civilian intelligence agency is the route being taken by the Government. We are supporting the proposition which will delete the provisions establishing the civilian agency. We are saying that the Government has made a mistake. As the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has said so eloquently, we think there is a better way. We are trying to explain this by virtue of this new method of delivery of a message to the Government-a cross between a courier pigeon and a woodpecker. I think that is the most appropriate way to deal with the Government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Hon. Member referred to report stage in the disposition of a Bill as a new method of sending a message to the Government. I think that is an inappropriate observation. Report stage of a Bill is a very well established procedure. The rules are very clear. For the Hon. Member to argue that it is a new way of being able to send messages to the Government shows his basic misunderstanding of what this stage of the Bill is all about.
I support the Chair in its observation that Hon. Members should stick to the clauses to which amendments have been moved, and to the amendments.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I fully understand report stage. Report stage is simply a device which takes the place of Committee of the Whole. The Bill is sent to committee. All Members cannot be there, so we come back to report to the House on the committee's work. That is what
Security Intelligence Service
report stage is. That is exactly what we are doing. If this hurts the Solicitor General so much, why does he not change it so that he will not be hurt by the truth?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: For a third time the Chair will ask the Hon. Member who has the floor to abide by the rules of report stage, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is exactly what I am doing, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking on report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair is of the opinion that this is not what the Hon. Member is doing. The Chair will quote a Standing Order which may bring the Hon. Member back to his senses. It is Standing Order 38(2).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Withdraw that, that is hardly appropriate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are supposed to protect the rights of all Members, not just the Liberals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It reads:
The Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Member to the House.
The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me deal with another aspect of the Security Intelligence Service which is very relevant. That service should not have the opportunity of getting spies and subversive people in it. That is an important item of the intelligence service. What protection is there here in relation to the recruitment of spies as compared with that of the RCMP? A person joins the RCMP as a recruit, as a constable. He goes through many years of service. He would have to be very, very persistent to remain in there as a fifth columnist. However, in the civilian service one could be hired at any time. Consequently, there is no real check and balance in keeping fifth columnists out of the intelligence service when we have a civilian agency.
I should like to make another point. The RCMP has two separate methods of training its people. It trains those in the police service who will enforce the law, and it trains those who are in the intelligence service. They are not the same service. It is not the same training but they are trained. Even with a civilian service we will have to train people. We cannot hire them right out of university into the intelligence service. It takes a lot of work and it takes a lot of time. Consequently, as

June 18, 198
Security Intelligence Service
one of the Attorneys General said to the Committee, "Why do we not build on what we have?" We have that service there now. They have been trained in intelligence work. Why not build upon it instead of starting something brand new which has no checks and balances in it at all?
The Government is trying to ram down the throats of Canadians a civilian service instead of building upon the RCMP service which is already in place with well trained people. The Government is putting them into the civilian service. It is taking them out of the RCMP and moving them into a civilian service. It will have RCMP people there, but it will take away their uniforms. It will take away the RCMP aspect.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for indicating that I have only one minute remaining. Democracy reflects the thinking of the people. This Bill is just an indication or writing on the wall to the people of Canada that the new Leader and his Government will be the same old crowd, using closure and telling the people what is good for them. That is what is in the books for Canadians. They had better take a careful look at what is going on in the House today. It is an indication of what they will have for the next five years if they re-elect this crowd on the other side of the House, even though they have a new Leader.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it might be possible to seek unanimous consent to hear the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for another ten or 15 minutes. His remarks are most edifying and might enlighten the Members of the House. I would certainly be prepared to move such a motion if it met with the approval of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair will ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) did not see fit to allow the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to continue his remarks. Putting the best construction on it, he saw me getting up and I suppose he wanted to hear me speak. I would much rather that he heard the Hon. Member for Bow River.
This clause of the Bill has attracted more attention across Canada than most other provisions in this piece of legislation, that is, the issue of whether the security service should be part of the RCMP or should be a separate and totally civilian service. In every great debate and in every issue, especially a predominant one like this, there are two sides to the question. This issue has two sides to it as well. Some are attractive, some are not. It is our job to weigh the pros and cons. In this case it is not surprising that for us in the Opposition those things that seem to be attractive do not weigh very heavily against the parts that are negative.
The first attractive feature of separating the security service from the RCMP is the past work that the RCMP has been called upon to do for the security of the country. I refer to those incidents that took place mainly in the Province of Quebec about 15 years ago when they were accused and convicted of burning barns and raiding the offices of a political party in the Province of Quebec. Frankly, that has sullied the reputation of the RCMP. I do not blame those members of the force for wanting to see this particular service hived off the RCMP. That experience has hurt them. It has damaged the entire force. The problem is that many of us suspect that those directions came from political officers of the Government, that it was because of the political motives of the Liberal Government at that time that they were forced to do things they would not have done under normal circumstances. Therefore, the past history need not be the experience of the future. With an honourable government in office that need not happen again.
The second attractive feature is one of administration. I can well imagine that those in administrative positions within the security service might find it easier to operate the force if it does not have to think of both policing and security activities. To keep the security service separate from the RCMP may make it more simple to manage. It is a question of efficiency. Surely raw efficiency is not the bottom line when thinking of this kind of issue. There ought to be very relevant issues that form part of this debate on the administration of the force.
This brings me to the negative factors of splitting it, why we believe the security service should not be taken away from the RCMP. First, there is already all across Canada, in fact around the world, a trust on the part of the people in the RCMP. The people believe in the force. They trust it. They know the force to have a sence of honour. They know that given its own direction, without political interference, it is going to operate a good, well-managed, disciplined, professional service. Because of the history of the force, there is a sense of trust between the people and the force. That is something you cannot buy, nor is it something you can establish quickly.
Even if, in splitting the security service from the RCMP, you could establish a sense of trust, it would take a lot of time to build that kind of relationship between the force and the Canadian people. Since the security service is going to be in the background and not very visible, there is very little likelihood that it will establish that kind of trust. The RCMP did it by being very visible. We see them, they are around. We recognize them. When we recognize them and see the way they operate that trust is established. The fact that the security service is going to be a quiet operation does not allow that service to build that kind of trust.
The first reason we believe we ought to maintain a security service within the structure of the RCMP is because that force will need all the trust it can get from the Canadian people. Because of the nature of its work, the issues that we discussed in previous clauses dealing with such matters as security, what entails security, the nature of subversion and so forth and because the force will be dealing with very loose definitions, we
June 18, 1984

will need and extra abundance of trust in that force. It will not be easy to build that.
The second reason we need to maintain the force under the aegis of the RCMP is that of the internal factors. It has to do with discipline. What do you do if things go wrong? The best force in the world will have things go wrong. The most well intentioned officers of that force will experience times when they either use excessive force, have poor judgment or miscalculate and things will go wrong. Personnel will do things that are wrong. The Bill proposes that ultimately that kind of problem will be dealt with in a quasi political fashion through the deputy, the Minsiter or Members of the Cabinet in a quasi if not a totally political manner. That is not good. The fact that the RCMP already has a structure for enforcing discipline makes it a very attractive way of handling that problem.
My colleague from Bow River gave an example of creating discipline through the system of promotion. You start as a constable and work your way up through the system by means of promotion, a system of tried and true escalation of authority. There is a built-in force of discipline. Second, if somebody has done something wrong, there could be a court martial. There is an enforced procedural judicial structure within the force so that when somebody does something wrong there is a procedure in place that will deal with it in a non-political way. When things went wrong in Quebec the politicians who presumably asked them to do something wrong let them hang out to dry.
When you have a system that is separated from politics and any other kind of internal discipline, how do you handle it? That concept has some attractiveness for the civilian security force. Those two aspects that would seem to make it attractive would weigh very lightly in the face of the very positive attributes to the concept of leaving it with the RCMP. May I call it nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, on May 22 to be precise, I rose to ask a question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) regarding the government's plans to introduce legislation that would deal with the very grave problem we are having with child pornography in our country. I had travelled to Ottawa the day before and on the airplane I picked up a copy of that day's issue of the The Globe and Mail. I saw a front page story entitled "U.S. porn law advocated for Canada". I found out that a
Adjournment Debate
gentleman in Toronto by the name of Mr. Scott who has organized an anti-pornography activist group has advocated that Canada adopt parallel legislation to that which Mr. Reagan in the United States has now endorsed.
The fact is, Sir, that the American legislation contains some very attractive features. First, it provides for a commission which will examine the link between pornography and obscenity. The new act will increase fines for trafficking in child pornography, raise the age of children covered by the law to 18 from 16 and will broaden some investigative and prosecutional powers of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In addition to that, the Americans did something that I think was very smart. Before they announced and promulgated signed legislation they held a two-day seminar on the production and dissemination of pornography. That seminar was sponsored by the Justice Department. The people who were invited to attend were U.S. Attorneys, 20 post office workers, 20 local law enforcement officers and 40 members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They were briefed on the new legislation and were told how to investigate and prosecute cases involving the distribution of pornographic material such as magazines and videotape cassettes.
That is the kind of serious action that our country ought to take when it comes to pursuing this particular issue. Frankly, we in Canada have taken a very milquetoast approach to the subject and to the destruction that child pornography wreaks across Canada. There are some grave problems.
When I asked the Solicitor General whether or not he would implement such legislation, he told me that a couple of years ago the Government had introduced legislation dealing with child pornography. However, I would remind the House that that legislation was drafted so poorly and badly the Government withdrew. There was no way it could handle that legislation. Every group in the country saw that legislation as being a big problem.
The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), several other Hon. Members and I have been working on this theme for a number of years in the hopes that the Government would do something constructive and concrete to make sure that the lives of our young people would be protected from rather than contaminated by the kind of filth that is being sold for profit all across the country. You know, Mr. Speaker, that most of the pornography in Canada is imported from the United States. About 80 per cent of it comes from the United States, with another percentage from overseas. Very little child pornography is produced in Canada. However, the fact is that some of it is produced in Canada. If it comes in from the United States, it should be even more easily controlled, and it would be if there were some teeth in the Customs Act and the Post Office Act and if we had the kind of resources required to control it.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary who will respond to my question to urge his colleagues to do something constructive so there will be some kind of protection for our young people and our children.

June 18, 1984
Adjournment Debate
There is another concern on my mind and in my heart, and that is that we are hearing contrary voices on the issue. I recall the former Member for New Westminster saying, "Look, if we pass that kind of legislation, you could not even read the Bible." Shucks, I do not see kids lining up to buy the Bible in order to read those passages. I wish they would. That is the issue. As a matter of fact, another somewhat stupid comment was made by a lawyer in Vancouver by the name of Jonathan Baker. He said that the local by-law would prevent people from reading Shakespeare. That is the kind of stupidity which is being promulgated by lawyers who want to sit on the sidelines and not to contribute to the protection of children.
There is another current which disturbs me. While groups across Canada are gathering their support for this kind of legislation-and I am speaking now of women's groups who fortunately are joining the battle and seeing it as an issue of violence against children and women-other organizations which have the respect of the large community are helping to create the problem. For example, I am thinking of Planned Parenthood. In a publication known as The Great Orgasm Robbery, they said:
Sex is fun, and joyful... and it comes in all types and styles, all of which are OK. Do what gives pleasure and enjoy what gives pleasure and ask for what gives pleasure. Don't rob yourself of joy by focusing on old-fashioned ideas about what's "normal" or "nice". Just communicate and enjoy.
When that kind of hedonism is promoted through an organization that has some kind of credibility across Canada, and which receives government grants, how do we stop hedonism once it is moving? The kids who are taught that in school grow up to be teenagers who abuse other people. It is time that the Government quit giving grants to organizations which do that. As well, it is time the Government brought in legislation which would protect our youth.


Mr. A1 MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my formal remarks, I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) for his genuine interest in this subject. It is imperative for Members of the House to remember the consistent efforts which have been made by the Department of Justice and the Government to combat pornography in all forms.
In 1978 the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs recommended that specific legislation be implemented to deal with pornography involving children. Following the tabling of that committee's report, proposals to deal with obscenity were contained in Bill C-51, which was introduced by the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Ron Basford. Subsequently, those proposals were repeated in Bill C-21 which was introduced by the Hon. Otto Lang who as well was a Minister of Justice. The draft legislation adopted in substance the major recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Unfortunately, both Bills died on the Order
Paper due to the pressure of other business and the session coming to an end.
In January, 1981, the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Jean Chretien, introduced specific proposals to deal with child pornography in Bill C-53. With his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), he established the National Committee to Study the Sexual Abuse of Children and Youths which, among its tasks, was to consider the matter of child pornography.
During its consideration of Bill C-53, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs debated at length the nature and form of such amendments. At the risk of the Bill dying in committee, the Minister agreed to split off the exploitation of children provisions of Bill C-53, which included measures to deal with child pornography from the sexual assault provisions. Bill C-53 died on the Order Paper at the end of the last session, in December, 1983.
The impasse over the proposals in Bill C-53 indicated the need to wait for the findings of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths which is due to report this July, as well as the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution which is expected to report in December, 1984.
To assist these committees in their efforts, the Department of Justice is completing extensive emperical research into pornography. It is expected that the results of these endeavours will provide much needed information on the best methods to control the distribution of obscene materials.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please.


FINANCE-PROPOSED MORTGAGE RATE PROTECTION PROGRAM. (B) INCREASE IN MORTGAGE RATES
Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, on May 10 I rose to voice my concerns about the devastation regarding the escalation of interest rates and what hardship it will impose on the housing industry and on jobs in particular. Since I posed my question to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren), the situation has deteriorated. Interest rates have risen 2 per cent since the February Budget to 14.5 per cent for five-year mortgages. The mortgage rate insurance plan is another prime example of what the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Fleming) described as a Liberal fixation for smoke, mirrors and ballyhoo. There is no leadership. There is no tackling of the problem of higher interest rates. We must provide stability for the housing market. We must increase the incentive for lenders to participate in the mortgage market at reasonable rates. We must reduce the deficit.
There is no quick fix-all, Mr. Speaker. There is no magic potion. However, by tackling the problem, interest rates can be reduced. By gaining control of the country's debt and encouraging risk-taking and thereby revitalizing the economy,

June 18, 1984
all Canadians will be better off, and I mean "all Canadians". We have to rid ourselves of this regional disparity.
The housing market is crucial to the economy as a whole. Our goal on this side of the House is to help Canadian home owners and see more Canadians becoming home owners. Unlike the New Democratic Party, and the Liberals in some cases, we believe that the ownership of property should be entrenched in the Charter of Rights. We believe that every man or woman should have the right to own a part of this country. This is why millions of people emigrated to this country. The housing sector is a vital, important employer. Every housing start represents 2.5 jobs, and the lack of jobs is the main problem facing Canadians today. We cannot allow this vital sector to erode any more than it has.
Housing starts in 1983 were 179,000, and the projected rate for this year is only 135,000. For workers in the construction industry, the unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted for May, was 23.8 per cent. The five-year mortgage rate has climbed two points to 14.5 per cent since the February Budget. Two percentage points on the average Canadian 20-year mortgage means a home owner pays an additional $16,231. Yet, despite the severe limitations of the Bill, the bitter irony is that it should have been introduced six months ago. Even back dating it to March 1 is only providing token relief to Canadians.
Mainly the Government's mismanagement of the economy aggravates a worsening problem for the Canadian people. There is no relief in sight. Interest rates continue to climb. Unemployment climbs to above 11.7 per cent. The Canadian dollar falls to below 77 cents. High interest rates on mortgages have an impact on the price of housing in Canada. During the fourth quarter of 1983, the average sale price of a house in Canada was $76,800. If we look at a 10 per cent down payment, plus property taxes of about $1,200, while bearing in mind that total payments for principal, interest and taxes should not exceed 30 per cent of one's gross income, Canadians now need a family income of $36,200 to pay the average price for a home in Canada. In Toronto, Mr. Speaker, people need a family income of $46,000 to be able to afford the average price of a home at $100,300. A home in my area, in Vancouver, would cost $114,000, requiring a family income of $52,000. We do not even make that much.
In the face of all that, the much ballyhooed government assistance program, fraught with deficiencies, seems so inappropriate. It is a step in the right direction, but not enough. The maximum of $70,000 is not high enough, especially when you consider the various regions. The Vancouver area is one example. How was the 2 per cent limit arrived at? Could it be because only once in the last 33 years, that is from 1980 to September, 1981, did a five-year mortgage increase above 2 per cent? That may be the reason but we on this side of the House would like to know how it was arrived at. The fact that the protection fee of 1.5 per cent is the same whether you take out a one, three or five-year mortgage does not make sense either.
Adjournment Debate
I take no joy in the fears I expressed on May 10, nor in what I am saying right now. Therefore, will the Government not admit to the serious problems faced by the housing industry and move to address them? Every Canadian has the right to a job and the right to the chance of owning a home. These are the pillars of our society. These are the dreams, the hopes and aspirations of every Canadian and they are being taken away because of mismanagement by the Government. I urge the Government to reassess its position. It has done nothing with the selection of its new leader from Bay Street. He is in bed with the banks and the CPR. I call on the Government to call an election immediately.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, legislation for the Mortgage Rate Protection Program has been introduced in the House of Commons. Before its introduction, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and their officials were actively involved in intensive consultations with the housing industry, with consumers' representatives and with lenders. This consultative process was surely the best way to develop and implement this budgetary proposal, the basic purpose of the Government's proposed Mortgage Rate Protection Program is to offer security against severe financial disruption due to sharp increases in interest rates. By limiting an individual's exposure to extreme volatility in mortgage rates, the program will help to encourage more individuals to buy houses, including newly-constructed dwellings, and will contribute to the stability and growth of the residential construction industry. The degree of protection provided by the program can be very large if mortgage rates should increase dramatically.
In considering this measure, the Ministers involved have attempted to ensure that the mortgage market remains as viable and responsive in the future as it has in the past. We certainly would not want to approve measures that would have the effect of increasing the cost of mortgages, decreasing the availability of mortgage funds or reducing the range of instruments available. Indeed, the various measures in the Budget related to mortgages are expected to improve the security of home owners and prospective home buyers and increase the flexibility of the mortgage market. In view of the extensive consultations and the wide support the Mortgage Rate Protection Program has received, it is hoped that the legislation will be passed expeditiously. In addition, the Mortgage Rate Protection Program legislation is to be retroactive to March 1, 1984, so that delays resulting from the consultation process would not prevent home owners from obtaining protection.
The Hon. Member mentioned that property rights should be enshrined inthe Constitution for every Canadian. I have to remind him that those rights are within provincial jurisdiction. If he wants those rights enshrined, he should have the provinces give up the authority to the federal Government so we can proceed with this provision for all Canadians.

June 18, 1984
Adjournment Debate


CO-OPERATIVES-TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION ON WORKERS' CO-OPERATIVES. (B) CONSULTATION WITH CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVES
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, on May 30 I asked some questions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding the May 29 task force recommendations on a co-operative development strategy for Canada. That report, which arose out of the Throne Speech last December and a committee financed by the federal Government in January of this year, produced an excellent report, the Report of the National Task Force on Co-operative Development. I would like to make the Government aware that both I and my Party are in strong support of many of those recommendations. The Government has had at least a couple of weeks to have an initial look at the report. We hope that it will perhaps give us a more clear and forthright response, at least in terms of direction, than was obtainable either from the Prime Minister on May 30 or from the Minister responsible for economic development when he was asked a question on May 29, immediately following the presentation of the task force report by my colleague, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).
The recommendations of the task force dealt with a number of areas. I will quote from their release of May 29. It reads:
As priorities the task force recommends increased development in four areas of national concern where co-operatives have "significant undeveloped potential"-worker-owned enterprises, health services, fisheries, and housing.
One of the areas which I am most personally concerned with as a representative of an area of British Columbia with a very high level of unemployment and a very strong spirit of independence, which is suffering under a rather reactionary provincial government at this point, has regard to the lengthy sections of the task force report which refer to the success of worker co-ops in the Basque area of Spain. Anyone who comes from my region cannot help but draw certain parallels between the situation in which we find ourselves in the west Kootenays of British Columbia and that confronted by the people of the Basque for several years under Franco. By the process of worker co-ops, during that period of 30 to 40 years, they have been able to become one of the most industrialized and prosperous areas of that country, in spite of a Government which tended to victimize them on occasion.
Particularly I would like to make reference to the three major recommendations of the task force on worker co-ops. The report reads:
The task force puts forward major recommendations to help spur the development of worker co-operatives:
A support system should be created "under the direction of the co-operative system but in partnership with the federal Government and interested provincial governments".
A steering committee should be set up with representatives of both the established co-operative movement and emerging worker co-operatives to formulate a plan for creating a regionally-based worker co-operative development agency. The plan would specify respective roles of the co-operative system, federal and provincial governments, and local worker co-op organizing groups.
The federal Government should endorse worker co-operatives as a priority vehicle for employment generation. It should also make funding assistance available to the co-operative movement for the staff work of the steering committee, for regional development assistance agencies, and for the creation of a pool of start-up funds or start-up guarantees for individual employee-owned co-operatives.
There are a number of other recommendations. There are some 14 pages within the main report on the establishment of worker co-ops alone.
When the Parliamentary Secretary opposite replies, perhaps he could give some assurance in answer to the other question which I posed to the Prime Minister to which I got an interesting, but not particularly relevant reply. It has to do with the absence of consultation with organized labour by the task force. If we want to see the maximum utilization of the concept of worker co-operatives we must attempt to enlist the co-operation and support, because there will naturally be some suspicion, of those people in organized trade unions in order to facilitate the logical and orderly growth of a principle which I think many people on the Government side, as well as many of us in the Opposition, support. For years and years there has been a joint labour co-op committee within the Canadian Labour Congress. There are many other examples of longstanding, at least consultation if not always active, co-operation between those two sections of the popular movement in Canada. It would be very regrettable if we missed the opportunity to maximize the consent and support for such a worthwhile concept. It may indeed hold a lot of economic and political answers to maintaining democracy, both in the economic and political sphere in this country and to help resolve some of the problems of severe economic dislocation that some of our regions have suffered.
I look forward to hearing some assurance, not only this evening but in the upcoming campaign, that it will be one of the major subjects addressed by the Government. It will certainly be a subject to which we will give active discussion during that period. Hopefully, with whatever government we are blessed or obsessed following the campaign, we will be in a position to take concerted action to realize these constructive dreams that offer the best of all possible worlds for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to answer the question put by the Member for Kootenay-West (Mr. Kristiansen).
Mr. Speaker, the report ordered after the Speech from the Throne last December was published on May 29 and contains, of course, a number of recommendations. Tonight I would like to comment on the Government's position for a number of years on co-operative movements. In this connection, I would like to quote some resolutions adopted at the National Conven-
June 18, 1984

tion in Winnipeg in July 1980. At the time, one resolution from Saskatchewan urged and I quote:
(a)	That the Liberal Party of Canada again recognize the uniqueness and desirability of the co-operative approach to organizing a large part of Canadian activities; and
(b)	That the Government of Canada consult often with co-operatives, encouraging them to expand and promoting a strengthening of the role they play in this country.
Mr. Speaker, in the last two years the Government has responded to a number of initiatives from the co-operative sector. It has provided financial assistance to Canadian CoOperative Implements Ltd., a farm machinery manufacturing company located in Winnipeg. By amending the Financial Administration Act, the Government-I think this is very important, and I am referring to a legislative measure that may not have received much publicity but was still very important-the Government removed a number of obstacles which for quite some time had prevented the Caisses populates and credit unions from providing financial services,
Adjournment Debate
including holding federal Government deposits. The Caisses populaires and credit unions are co-operatives. The government has provided readier access to other Government services by making changes in administrative methods. The Government has always made a point of consulting with the private sector and co-ops. I am thinking particularly of the consultations on the Budget held by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and I am referring to the last two Budgets of the present Minister who held a number of consultations with the private sector, including co-operatives.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Government of Canada is very sensitized to the co-operative movement. It has demonstrated this in the past and it will surely continue to do so in the years to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 9.29 p.m., the House adjourned.

Tuesday, June 19, 1984