1984-02-20

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that 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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak against Bill C-9. It is quite a bad Bill although admittedly it is not as bad as Bill C-157 which went before it. Rather, it looks as if Bill C-157 was made as bad as possible in order to make Bill C-9 look good.
Bill C-9 does three things. First of all, it threatens Canadians who dissent from the Government, Canadians who support change in Canada and Canadians who support peace and justice in the world. All are threatened with practically uncontrolled mail opening and government action to infiltrate and disrupt their organizations by secret operatives. The Bill also authorizes the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to become secretly obligated to unnamed foreign governments. As a counterpart of that, it excludes elected Members of Parliament and, for that matter, non-elected members of the Senate, from reviewing its work in any thorough way. It even excludes the appointed review committee from reviewing Cabinet documents.
The background of this Bill is very important. It was pointed out just a few years ago by a person who has done more to defend the liberty of Canadians than the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan)-I refer to Jean-Claude Parrot, the head of the postal workers' union-that in Canada we seem to have two kinds of laws. When the postal workers go out on legal strike, the Government passes a law to make the strike illegal. When the RCMP open letters illegally, the Government passes a law to make it legal.
This is what this Bill is all about, Mr. Speaker. In the past it was the unions which were attacked, unions being second-class citizens. Union members are the only ones who can be sent to jail for not working. Professional people are now being attacked. In the 1960s the approach of the Government was more soft sell. It tried to fund the dissenters in order to take over dissent. By the end of the 1960s the professional people who dissented felt, in the words of George Grant, a well-known conservative philosopher, that dissent had become bureaucratized, that the dissenters had been co-opted. Around 1970, with the burning down of the Praxis Building in Toronto, tougher tactics began to emerge, not only the burning of the Praxis Building but burning a barn, defaming left leaders, forging documents, and all kinds of notorious, dirty tricks. There was some success achieved, I suppose, in the disruption of dissent and criticism during the 1970s by those means. Those tactics were not used, so far as can be determined, against espionage or sabotage. They were used against what might have vaguely been defined as subversion. But no criminal charges were laid in connection with incidents which would be commonly understood to be criminal activities engaged in by the police.
Following public outcry and considerable condemnation from the McDonald Commission, there were many crimes by the RCMP documented. There was no prosecution for these crimes outside the Province of Quebec. There has been no identified disciplinary action. We are told some people have been disciplined. We do not know whether they were disciplined for the crimes they committed or disciplined for helping to expose the crimes. There has been no undertaking that those crimes would cease. In fact, the effect of Bill C-157 and its "child" tends not to make those crimes punishable but to illegalize or intimidate dissent and criticism.
The Government proceeded as follows: after the report of the McDonald Commission of 1981, it delayed for two years and would take no action on any of the recommendations. On the question of prosecution it made sure it delayed until the statute of limitations rescued it. The Government then put forward Bill C-157, an amazingly bad Bill which brought unanimity from coast to coast among the provincial attorneys general in condemning the Bill. That was a remarkable achievement, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill was then diverted to the Senate for hearings where it was felt it would get more sympathetic treatment than in Parliament since there is no third party opposition in the Senate. The Senate committee under Senator Pitfield made certain recommendations which were not as strong as the recommendations of the McDonald Commission and tended to

February 20, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
mask and hide the McDonald Commission recommendations from public attention.
The Government now, after this delay, has asked us to move suddenly on this Bill. It was even introduced on a Friday with less than one day's notice. The Friday before a Minister and his assistant whined about the fact that we were debating fisheries on a Friday-an important subject-although it was the Government which gave only one day's notice that it would be an Opposition Day. The Government then tried to slide Bill C-9 through about 10 days ago, on a Friday, hoping that it would move right through to committee without any serious debate on second reading.
The faults of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, are, first of all, that intrusion threatens Canadian dissenters with very vague language. The Bill refers to "any action directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow". That allows any policeman or any civilian-type investigator the scope to be able to say: "I think I need to investigate that fellow. Some day he might be doing something which would tend to lead to the overthrow of the government".
[DOT] (ms)
By contrast, Mr. Speaker, the United States, which has much more serious experience with real espionage and terrorism, introduced new guidelines a year ago in which domestic security and terrorism investigation may be initiated "when the facts or circumstances reasonably indicate that two or more persons are engaged in an enterprise for the purpose of furthering political or social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of the criminal laws of the United States". There must be much more specific evidence before they are allowed to proceed with that kind of an investigation. They must be able to show the magnitude of the threatened harm, the likelihood that it will occur, the immediacy of the threat-not some ultimate, "some day, maybe" action; it must be something immediate.
What is strikingly absent from this proposed Bill is that they must show that danger to privacy and free expression are sufficient to warrant an investigation. The Canadian law is much weaker in protecting Canadians. In spite of the recommendations of the McDonald Commission, or even of the friendly Pitfield committee, Bill C-9 excludes any mention of the duty of the secret service to convince the judge that the investigation is really needed. That is to say, that the damage to privacy is outweighed by the possible immediate damage if the investigation is not carried forward. That was asked for by both commissions and notably excluded in the Solicitor General's Bill.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, intrusions such as mail opening with no more control that in the past, infiltration and disruption, threaten Canadians who are advocating social change at home or peace and international justice. For example, people who criticized the World Bank loan to South Africa could be caught in this kind of a coil. On the other hand, people who support the African National Congress would likewise be caught. Or even people who support the World Bank loan to
South Africa, considering that country is engaged in violating international law by using that money to finance its war against Namibia, could be caught by this vague wording.
Canadians who support the FDR-FMLN resistance to the fascist government in El Salvador could be caught under this law. Likewise, Canadians who support D'Aubisson, the architect of mass violence and the probable architect of the murder of an archbishop, could be caught under this law. Supporters of the dictator Pinochet could be caught, or opponents as well. The law is meaningless. In the case of Chile, it would even catch the Roman Catholic church. Supporters of Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti, that is to say, people carrying on CIDA projects, could be caught under this law. People carrying on CIDA projects in Honduras could be suspected of supporting a country which is a military base for the United States to invade and intimidate neighbouring nations in Central America.
By the way, aliens are given slightly more rights under this proposed law but not substantially more. However this part is not in keeping with the statement of the former Minister of Immigration who said that a mark of a civilized country is how it treats the poorest of its people. He suggests an equal test is how a civilized country treats those who are not its citizens and find themselves in desperate circumstances. These are, for example, refugee claimants, immigrants who have been declared inadmissible for reasons that cannot be told and illegal immigrants who are struggling to meet the Minister's supposed requirements for admission. It is against this background that I find the section on security provisions against aliens completely unsatisfactory.
I now come to the matter of infiltrators, "agents provocateurs". They have been used plentifully in the past. It is a practice which everyone agrees is unfair and immoral, especially being used by the government of a country against its own citizens who are not even accused of committing a crime. The Keable Commission recommended that this should be done only after a warrant had been issued by a judge. The Pitfield Commission downgraded the idea to guidelines rather than warrants, suggesting something similar to the FBI guidelines in the United States. In fact, it really ought to be necessary and recognized in law that anyone who wishes to carry on this kind of infiltration and disruption should show cause to a judge to justify the warrant and the invasion of privacy. In fact the Solicitor General has ignored the Keable Commission and the Pitfield committee and been completely silent on the matter of ending this practice of infiltration and disruption. We can expect the practices of the 1960s and 1970s with their dirty tricks to continue because the Solicitor General will not oppose them. He had this chance but he will not.
Goodness knows what trouble we may get into if we start digging into the slush fund administered by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts). We may find ourselves up against the Solicitor General for challenging a government program.
February 20, 1984

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will not be subject to review by Parliament. The McDonald Commission required a parliamentary committee chosen by the Party Leaders with a right to see all evidence. The Pitfield committee suggested a Security Intelligence Review Committee appointed by the Government with a right to see all evidence and material, rather than a committee of Parliament. The Solicitor General has cut that down to the bone. There will be an appointed committee reflecting government views after consultation with the opposition. This means nothing. They will not be able to see the Cabinet documents that are vital to the operation and are in possession of the service.
Yet this same service can make contracts with unnamed foreign governments or unnamed departments of foreign governments and keep them secret from the Canadian people. Why is this? Has the FBI some dirty work that it wants the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to do, perhaps to help it combat the terrible threat of the American Indians?
The U.S. has more experience in terrorism than Canada. It nevertheless leaves investigation of U.S. citizens suspected of subversion to the FBI. There is oversight of that operation by the Senate and Congress. In Canada our Solicitor General wants to treat Canadians as though we are aliens in our own land, with a civilian force-which is essentially a police force-which will be more answerable to unnamed foreign governments than it will be to the Canadian people through their elected representatives.
The Government ought to withdraw this Bill and bring back a bill which is more in keeping with the recommendations of the McDonald Commission.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). I certainly found them helpful in explaining why he is strongly opposed to this Bill.
Would he elaborate on one point which he made during the course of his remarks with respect to the vagueness of the mandate which is proposed for the new security service? He referred to the fact that under the provisions of this legislation, groups within Canada who seek to support agencies or individuals in other countries seeking to put an end to oppressive and dictatorial governments may themselves come under surveillance. Could he elaborate on that particular provision of the legislation?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to draw attention to certain wording in the proposed legislation. A threat to the security of Canada is considered to include, among other things, 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. In other words, anyone in Canada supporting someone in a foreign state who is pursuing a political objective with the use
Security Intelligence Service
of acts of violence may be considered a threat. As I mentioned, the government of South Africa carries out violence against the black people within its borders and in neighbouring states. Therefore, anyone who supports the government of South Africa comes under this category of a threat to the security of Canada. I would think that there are many businessmen, bankers and government servants, for that matter, who come under that category.
Of course, it may be argued that the government will not prosecute those people but only those who are supporting the black people, if they support them by any activity within Canada. In that case the application of the law would be rankly biased and would be completely inconsistent with the actual wording of the law. That is one strong example of the falsity of the wording of this law. It is completely inapplicable to those situations in which Canadians are already engaged.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, Clause 17 of the legislation is one provision that I think should be drawn to the attention of the House and those who are following this debate. Perhaps the Member for Spadina might elaborate on this clause which he referred to in the course of his remarks.
According to the provisions of Clause 17(b), the new security service may, following the approval of the Solicitor General and consultations with the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
-enter into an arrangement or otherwise co-operate with the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof or an international organization of states or an institution thereof.
According to this section, as I read it, it would be possible for the new civilian security service to pass on information which it obtains through the use of intrusive techniques. For example, this includes information which it obtains under Clause 16 of this legislation. That information may have nothing whatsoever to do with national security but could be information that would assist Canada in the conduct of its international affairs. It could be information gained from spying on a student group or group of foreign academics who are visiting Canada through opening their mail. In turn, that information could be passed on to an unnamed intelligence agency in a foreign country.
The present Solicitor General has taken the position that he will refuse to tell Canadians the names of the agencies that he is transferring this information to. We have a security agency which is using intrusive techniques to obtain information and pass it on to agencies of other governments, some of which the Solicitor General says are not even acknowledged in their own countries. One can only speculate on what kind of banana republic we are co-operating with when it does not even acknowledge the existence of its own security service. Conceivably those agencies can use that information against relatives or friends of the individuals within Canada. Would the Hon. Member elaborate on his concerns about this particular provision which he referred to in his speech?

February 20, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add two points to the very good points made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). It has already been a long-standing matter of experience that the RCMP passes information to the FBI and that we really have no control of what sort of information is passed. Over the years Canadians who have wanted to enter the United States have been stopped from time to time. There was an incident of a Member of the Order of Canada, a Mrs. Macpherson, who was stopped from entering the United States, perhaps because she was going to a peace rally in New York. This is the kind of intrusion into non-security matters in which the RCMP is engaged and about which it has apparently passed information to the FBI.
Second, there was the disreputable business a few years ago of the kidnapping in Canada of the American Indian leader, Leonard Pelletier, who was returned to the United States in violation of the spirit of the extradition law. In other words, Canadian police officers collaborated with the FBI in a way that violated Canada's security and, incidentally, violated the rights of North America's first people. This is the kind of thing that has been going on and which is now going to be legalized. It will be impossible to criticize it effectively, let alone to bring it to court, if the Solicitor General has his way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) for debate.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-9. I would urge every Member of this House and all Canadians to recognize that this Bill is of the utmost importance to this country. Many Bills which pass through this House affect our pockets but this Bill affects our liberty. It will continue to affect our liberty as individual Canadians and it will affect our personal lives. In that sense I think we should all be aware of how important it is, when this Bill gets to committee, that each and every Canadian who has an interest be heard. Make no mistake about it, it is very important legislation.
Today we are speaking of the second attempt by this Government to establish a civilian Security Intelligence Service. We are considering the possibility of creating a whole new service, replacing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police security service with one that would have very broad powers indeed to investigate the activities of Canadian citizens.
Let me read the duties and functions of this service in Clause 12 of Bill C-9. This will show how extensive the service is intended to be. Clause 12 reads:
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 and, in relation thereto, shall report to and advise the Government of Canada.
The previous Bill dealing with this matter introduced in this House was Bill C-157. It received a storm of protest from all across the country and from almost every civil rights organization we have, including provincial attorneys general. As the previous speaker said, the Government really achieved a great thing in that all provincial attorneys general agreed to oppose the legislation. That does not happen very often. Police force spokesmen, media commentators and individuals blew up such a storm of protest over the proposed legislation that Bill C-157 was withdrawn.
Then the Government immediately introduced Bill C-9. One wonders why the tremendous hurry to get this legislation into the House. I could not quite understand that until I looked at The Globe and Mail of today's date and found a copy of a story which the Auditor General first revealed. This was the business of the big new office building in Ottawa, the Centennial Towers and its many floors that have been empty for months. Those floors were designed to house this new security commission which we have not yet got and which we might never get, although the Government has already spent over $2 million on empty floor space. If that is not a political boondoggle, I do not know what is. It is not to the credit of the Government that this kind of waste goes on. One wonders, if it takes a 12-storey building or whatever to house a security force that does not exist, what kind of a mammoth organization of super snoopers the Government is trying to impose on Canadians.
The previous Bill was scrutinized carefully by the Senate committee. Some key changes were made in response to the recommendations of that committee. However, not all of the changes which the Senate committee recommended have been included in this Bill. Today is the first time the House of Commons has had an opportunity to debate this matter thoroughly. This debate is the starting point of public scrutiny of what I consider, and of what the Conservative Party considers, most important legislation. We look forward to the time when this Bill goes to committee and every clause is examined in detail and proposed amendments put.
The name of the Bill itself is imposing, startling and frightening. 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.
That is an example of the gobbledegook Bill C-9 is filled with which makes it uncertain and unsure what powers this agency will have. The Solicitor General himself has pointed out that this is peculiar and unusual legislation, that most countries do not have their entire security forces under one particular act but leave some parts to the discretion of the respective government. While discretion itself can be a dangerous thing when a sudden shift is made toward full reliance on statutory instruments, it is essential that the statute in question be concisely drafted to ensure it does no more than this Parliament intends it to. In an age when people are increasingly reliant on written documents for the protection of their rights, it is most important the mandate and the powers given to this future organization are clearly limited and unambiguously defined.
February 20, 1984

This new Bill purports to redefine the security intelligence system in Canada. Therefore, we have to ensure it does it correctly. I would like to highlight some, not all, of the concerns I feel are inherent in the provisions of Bill C-9.
The new law aims to deal with people and activities that are considered to be a threat to this country. In particular, the Minister has indicated that the Bill will be directed at controlling the following kinds of activities: classic espionage, sabotage activities, foreign-influenced activities and political violence, such as terrorism and domestic subversion. Certainly these categories are not those we would like to encourage in this country. However, close scrutiny of the provisions of Bill C-9 before us that attempt to cover espionage, foreign-influenced activities, terrorism and domestic subversion, raise some important questions relating to the mandate of the agency. Provision for the review of the activity of the service and the accountability of the agency are also of paramount concern.
Threats to the security of Canada are defined in Clause 2 of the Bill. It reads 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,
(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,
(c)	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, and
(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,-
On the face of it, it seems right and proper that that is what it should do. However, the importance of definitions cannot be overemphasized. The definitions in the Bill are very loose and vague.
The Senate committee reminded us that that section-and this is most important-will establish for the CSIS, its Director and employees, a fundamental standard for their activities. It will enter crucially into judicial determination of whether a particular intrusive technique can be used, and it will provide a benchmark for assessment of agency activities by review bodies and by the agency's political masters, that is, by Parliament. It is very important that the definitions as to what this group of super snoopers can and cannot do are clear and understandable.
I am prepared to admit, as we all are, that the definitions in the new Bill have been tightened significantly, particularly the final paragraph excluding lawful advocacy and protest from the purview of the security service. That is a major improvement. However, the definitions remain too broad in many respects. For example, what do the words "espionage" and "sabotage" mean in the Bill? Surely it is not too difficult and would not restrict the activities of the service to define those terms. It is absolutely essential to define what those words mean.
Security Intelligence Service
Does the inclusion of deceptive activity which is detrimental to the interests of Canada imply that the agency can investigate economic initiatives of foreign countries operating in Canada? On the face of those words, it would certainly seem that those people could investigate, for example, the operations of a Japanese company which is trying to sell its cars. Perhaps this could be construed as being against the interests of Canada. Will our foreign trade now be carried on by a group of super snoopers or secret servicemen? That is a somewhat strange way to run our foreign trade and compete with other countries.
What exactly is contemplated by the phrase "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"? A previous speaker mentioned the possibilities which might occur as a result of this clause. We really need to look at these particular sections to ensure that we are not giving this group of secret servicemen, as proposed, too wide a mandate.
Clause 21 of the Bill gives the service extraordinary powers which are to be authorized by a combination of judicial warrant and ministerial approval. Canadians should be aware of what that clause indicates. I would like to repeat part of it because it is very important. In referring to the powers of the agency, Clause 21 (3)(a) reads:
-to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing;
(b)	to search for, remove or return, or examine, take extracts from or make copies of or record in any other manner the information, record, document or thing; or
(c)	to install, maintain or remove any thing.
Those are very wide powers. They are powers to enter anyone's private property without the person's knowledge. We should be very careful what kind of powers we give this particular group.
The Senate called for a balance between the gravity of the threat to security and personal liberty. That is the key to this whole area. The balance is not here. The Government claims that this balance would be provided by the Minister in accepting or rejecting an application for a warrant, but it does not spell it out specifically. For example, the relationship between the Minister and the Director of the service is not clear. While the Minister plays a direct role in the authorization of warrant applications, the Director is vested with the powers of management and control subject to the direction of the Minister. The key problem with this arrangement is found in Clause 6(2), which provides that the Minister "may" issue written directions. Does this imply that the Minister will have the power to issue oral directions? If he issues oral directions, no record of those directions will come to the attention of the review committee. These are matters on which the Bill is not clear and I say is incomplete.
Finally, let me recite some of my broad concerns about and objections to this Bill. It is my philosophy and view that no legislation should be changed unless there is a demonstrated need and requirement for such legislation; second, unless there
February 20, 1984

Security Intelligence Service
is an urgent and compelling reason to enact new laws. Has such a demonstrated need and a compelling reason been shown? Some may say that two royal commissions have looked at the facts and recommended such a service. On the other hand, facts speak differently to different people. I have not heard to my satisfaction the kinds of facts which would necessitate such an overblown secret service as this Bill proposes. Canada is not a world power. We do not have the requirements of superpowers for secret services. That is part of the entire question we should examine in committee: What is the need for this organization and where has it been shown?
This proposed legislation must of necessity detract from the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians. Civil police forces have a very recent history in the world. The first civil police force was set up in the 1820s. It was the metropolitan police of London, the first in the world. Since that time-and that is not that long ago-every democratic government has had to struggle and experiment with the difficulties in defining the role and limiting the powers of the police so as to not encroach unduly upon civil liberties. It is very difficult to attain that balance. In doing this, the benefit of the doubt must always go to the individual. The balance of freedom must be given to the individual Canadian citizen. It has to be that way. However, that is not so with this piece of legislation, which was designed for the super snoopers themselves. The Minister had a group of potential secret servicemen in his office and they designed the proposed Act so that it fitted their needs.
The first draft, in their own words, was the Rolls-Royce model. It would have taken them quickly to their goal. The second draft, the one before us, they now claim is a Chevrolet or a Ford but will do the job very well. That is the wrong principle. These people should be given what I would call a handyman's wreck or a mechanic's delight-something on which they have to work to make it go. That is essential here. If it does not work, let them return and ask for an amendment to the legislation. It should not be the other way around where the rights and freedoms of Canadians are trampled upon and those Canadians have to come to Parliament and ask that the legislation be amended. That process takes too long and too many rights are trampled upon.
A previous speaker mentioned that the United States has a far greater problem but that its legislation is far tighter. It does not allow freedoms to the super snoopers such as the ones proposed in this legislation. I would like to refer to an article which appeared in the February 11, 1984 edition of The Globe and Mail, which reads in part:
Congressman Donald Edwards, the chairman of the House of Representatives committee which scrutinizes FBI activities, said that the "loose" definitions of threats to national security in the Canadian bill would never be tolerated in the United States.
Mr. Edwards, a liberal democrat from California who once was an FBI agent, said that the Canadian Bill looks like an invitation to trouble. That is exactly what it is. He goes on to say: "We used to let the FBI do these kinds of things, but not
any more." Why should we in this country walk into that kind of trap when we have had the experience with the FBI in the United States? Let us close the door before we open it to make sure that we do not have an Act which allows them to abuse the rights of Canadians.
The record of this Government in respecting the freedom of rights of citizens is anything but good. We do not have to recall very far back in the past when the War Measures Act was passed. That tempest in a teapot took away the rights of all Canadians, rights which had been earned over many years. Thousands of people were jailed in Quebec, but not one was found guilty. They were jailed without a trial, and all had to be let go.
More recently this Parliament passed the elections Bill, I believe it was Bill C-169, which restricted the right of free speech in this country. As the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) said in this House last week, he apologized to his constituents for being part of that. I do the same. It is another example of how, unless you really look at legislation, the government can slip through legislation restricting the rights of people. We have had recent revelations about the PMO and its eagerness to get into the super snooper business. It is an indication of why we should look at this Bill very carefully.
Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lived under the Russian secret police, the KGB. Hundreds of thousands lived in Nazi Germany and had to deal with the SS. Other hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lived under other dictatorial governments which had a secret service. These people are very concerned. They know that the more dictatorial a government becomes, the greater need such a government has for secret service activities. People in Canada are worried about this legislation, and well they might be. I assure Hon. Members that this Party will oppose this legislation until it is changed to protect the rights of Canadians.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a couple of questions to the Hon. Member who has just spoken, particularly given the fact that he is the deputy spokesperson for the Ministry of the Solicitor General for his Party. The McDonald Commission strongly recommended the establishment of a committee of Parliament to oversee the operations, in a policy sense and a budgetary sense, of the new civilian security service. Does the Hon. Member support the important recommendation that we not leave the oversight function to the executive, if you will, but rather that there be a parliamentary committee established which would be responsible for overseeing those operations?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that the key point with regard to this proposed organization is that it should be under the control of Parliament. I believe that suggestion is a good one and should be examined in committee. There may be others, but in my view it is essential that Parliament have final control over this organization.
February 20, 1984


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, the Hon. Member is supporting the establishment of such a committee to exercise that parliamentary oversight, is he?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, that is a good suggestion. I believe that idea will be reviewed in committee. There may be others. If others are better, perhaps that should be the way to go. I confirm my feeling that Parliament should be the final authority and should have control.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, following on the answer just given by the Hon. Member, does he feel that Parliament should have access to all material and documents in the possession of the service for the purpose of that review, including all relevant Cabinet documents?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, it was the recommendation of the Senate committee that the review committee should have that. I certainly agree with it. There is no reason why the committee should not have access to Cabinet documents dealing with the activities of the secret security service.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Pitfield committee recommended, and the Government has accepted the recommendation, that the new civilian security service should have sweeping, intrusive powers, including in particular the power to open first-class mail. The Member's colleague from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has strongly opposed the recommendation that the security service should have the power to open first-class mail. Can the Hon. Member enlighten the House as to his view whether it is an appropriate function for a civilian security service to be able to open first-class mail? Does he agree with his colleagues from Vancouver South?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, my first reaction is no, they should not have the right to open first-class mail; but on the other hand, there may be unusual circumstances which would justify the opening of mail, if there is sufficient evidence. That is a matter that has been left up in the air. There is no evidence before us. Perhaps those who take this position will justify it. Unless they do, I think the position taken by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) is the right one.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member in agreement with the McDonald Commission, which would require that if a judge is to be asked to issue a warrant to empower the security service to open first-class mail, one consideration he must weigh is whether the invasion of privacy is outweighed by the indication of danger to national security? That provision was recommended by the McDonald Commission. It is excluded from the Solicitor General's Bill. Is the Hon. Member in favour of having such a provision?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, surely the only reason it is taken before a judge is to weigh the balance between private rights and public need. I would approve of the judge doing that. That is all he can do.
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, when I first examined the provisions of Bill C-157, the precursor of Bill C-9, it occurred to me that we had an ideal companion piece to the Government's emergency planning order. That order of May, 1981 permitted the same Minister responsible for Bill C-9 to provide for the incarceration of civilian internees and, in the course of such planning, to arrange for the removal of prisoners from penal institutions and to move into those institutions civilian internees.
I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House as to the occasion when that emergency planning order might come into effect. It will be recalled that the emergency planning order was divided into two parts. The first part related to circumstances where an emergency had arisen; the second part related to those times where in case of war it was necessary to take these steps. My questions of the Prime Minister, and they are a matter of record in this House, indicated that when I asked him if he would be good enough to restrict the meaning of "war" to include only a situation where a state of war existed between Canada and some foreign nation, he sarcastically responded to me that he supposed I would be interested in hearing about a cold war. A cold war is a state of mind. The mind of the Government will determine whether war exists, if we are to believe what the Prime Minister has said.
Therefore, when I tie in the actions of the Solicitor general of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) under the emergency planning order with the original provisions of Bill C-157 and the residual parts thereof which are included in Bill C-9, I think this is alarming to any Canadian concerned with the security of the person and the civil liberties of Canadians.
If we add to that circumstance of linking those two pieces of legislation the new Bill introduced in the House with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code providing, as it does, for both the seizure and freezing of the property of citizens who are accused of crime without having had benefit of trial, we immediately realize that we have a beautiful triumvirate of legislation. One piece provides for the seizure of the property of the individual before he has ever been convicted on information gathered by a civilian security force which has extraordinary powers under the Bill; and the third prong of the attack against Canadians clearly is the position which would result in their incarceration.
It is alarming that we should be confronted with the type of circumstance that confronts us today. All parliamentarians should be concerned about the departure we have taken from normal practice. I know that if we believe the information provided by the Solicitor General with respect to this Bill, it is only for the purpose of gathering information. The security service will gather information and do nothing else. I rather suspect that when the Gestapo was established, it had no other purpose than to gather information and then implement it.
The great problem is that we have removed from an institution in Canada that is well respected by the citizens of the

February 20, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
country a service which formerly was conducted by them. I know that the RCMP has said that it is not qualified and does not in fact wish to undertake this function. I sometimes wonder whether that assertion is made with regard to the nature of the functions to be undertaken. The RCMP may prefer not to be involved in this type of activity. Something else bothers me about this assertion, Mr. Speaker. I wonder what the real position of the RCMP with respect to the removal of this function from their customary actions may be, in the event that they are able to speak freely and without the pressure of their political bosses being brought to bear upon them. We will never know that, however, as long as this Government holds office.
What is it about the Bill in specific terms that should alarm Canadians? I make a general practice of consulting with my constituents, Mr. Speaker. When Bill C-157 was introduced I communicated with them by way of my regular house-holder mailing, made comments with respect to Bill C-157 and asked a series of questions. One of those questions is as valid today as when I asked it, because the Bill does not remove all of the defects of Bill C-157. That question was: In any revised Security Intelligence Service Bill should members of that service have access to private census and tax information? I realize that census information was removed but tax information was not. Neither were medical records or information contained in a letter that may be deposited with Canada Post.
I am particularly concerned about the effect upon the tax system in Canada in the event that, contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, this Bill overrides the prohibitions against disclosure by members and employees of Revenue Canada to the security service. One of the fundamental tenets of proper tax disclosure in a self-assessing system is the recognition by the taxpayer that what he or she reports is confidential and will be used only for the purpose of assessing tax. There may well be circumstances where, in obeying the tax laws of Canada, people may have breached other laws. I say quite frankly that if you wish the tax system of self-assessment to be maintained as the cornestone of our taxing arrangements, then it is absolutely vital that that information supplied by taxpayers be confidential and used only for the purpose of assessing tax.
This Bill will go a long way toward shattering the confidence-if any is left-that taxpayers have in the system administered by the Government. I do not know if the general public is fully aware of the implications of the Bill on their tax reporting system, but they certainly will be by the time we are finished with it in the House. We have an obligation to disclose to Canadians exactly what the Government is doing to them. Because we have raised issues in the House which have been elaborated upon and followed very closely by the media, we already know that the general public is aware of the ill deeds perpetrated upon the taxpayers of Canada by the Government. We can only hope that we can rectify the damage done to the system by the Government's actions.
However, if the House, in reckless fashion, passes Bill C-9 without regard to the damage it will do to the tax system, then
when this Party forms the Government it will have a very difficult task trying to convince the people of Canada that it is appropriate that they honestly and fairly report all sources of income.
There is one other matter that concerns me about this legislation, Mr. Speaker. While we know that the mails are used for the purpose of transmitting drugs and other contraband products, it is my belief that the sanctity that has attached to letters being part of first-class mail ought to be maintained. A letter is but a written communication, with nothing else in the envelope. Indeed, first-class mail may include not only letters but the contents of an envelope in addition to the written material. That may well include contraband material, drug substances and the like. While it may be appropriate to examine a written communication that has attached or included with it contraband material, I submit it is not appropriate to open letters being part of first class mail. That matter has not been dealt with by the legislation. As a matter of fact, the Bill would entitle those pursuing the duties outlined for them in the Bill to open all mail, including letters in Canada, as it appealed to them.
One of the great defects that existed in Bill C-157 was clearly the lack of responsibility to the House by any minister of government who, whether he believed it or not, was responsible for the actions of this service. Thank heavens that has been remedied. It is a sad reflection upon the attitude of government that it would even contemplate the introduction of a Bill that tried to remove responsibilities from a minister of the Crown who was answerable in the House for the actions of a department of government or agency for which he should have assumed responsibility.
As a matter of fact, as I look at "intention", it worries me, Mr. Speaker, to find that any government would have had the audacity to attack the civil liberties of Canadians in the fashion of this Government when it introduced Bill C-157. To remove part of those offensive provisions does not, to my mind, eliminate the scorn which should be heaped on a Government which is so inclined to attack with reckless abandon the freedoms we enjoy in Canada. It so happens, of course, that it is the same Government which made much ado about a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which it attacks and assaults at every opportunity.
I am concerned about the search warrant provisions. We know that, as a general rule, mechanical functioning of oft changed provisions is left to the Governor in Council. The reason for that is that Parliament surely cannot be responsible on a daily basis for the minute changes which must be made in order to make a piece of legislation function smoothly. However, I am submitting to the House that consequent upon the delegation by Parliament to the Governor in Council under Clause 28 to pass those regulations dealing with such significant matters as warrants, is an unacceptable deletation by Parliament, and I quote from Clause 28-"governing the practice and procedure of, and security requirements appli-
February 20, 1984

cable to, hearings of applications for such warrants and for renewals of such warrants", we should know, Mr. Speaker, what the requirements ought to be. Is it a simple necessity under the intended plans of the Government that an application without more be submitted? I think not. Parliament should surely be aware of the very strict rules which should apply when the security of Canada is in jeopardy.
I wonder whether, having created a new force outside the ambit of the RCMP-which is not under the control and responsibility of the Solicitor General-we do not need some general principles which should apply with respect to those circumstances which would entitle members of the force to obtain those search warrants, which, as I indicated earlier, extend so far as to permit encroachment on the tax system, medical records and letters dispatched in the mail?
We have been told by the Government that this Bill meets one additional substantial complaint which was raised by the Senate committee which examined Bill C-157. That is that once an application has been made for a search warrant and has been turned down, the applicant cannot shop for a judge who will be more amenable to the desires of the person making the application. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, does not in fact preclude shopping for judges. All it requires is that some note be made of the fact that another judge may have accepted or rejected an application. If, indeed, the Government wishes to put an end to shopping for judges who would be more amenable to the requirements, all it needs to do is provide that once an application has been made to the court, another application may not be made for the same kind of search warrant. If the Government has the courage to do that, and I invite it to do so, we will have evidence of its alleged good intentions. If it, indeed, means what it says, let that change be made so that this Bill will remove that ominious provision which exists.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member if he could comment further on the matter of Revenue Canada and confidentiality. If a person has been contributing to some organizations, perhaps a church organization or a public group which is supporting liberation movements in South Africa or in Central America, and if it were found through this kind of intrusive mail opening that the individual had applied for a tax exemption in the case of an organization which had that exemption available to it, would the Hon. Member feel that that would be an improper use of this kind of intrusion?


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me a question of law as to whether or not, as a consequence of making a donation to a charitable organization so recognized, the status of the charitable organization might be removed for some other purpose. That has nothing to do with this Bill, as I see it. My objection to this legislation is-and I thought I dealt with it rather extensively-that I did not want that information to fall into the hands of persons other than those entitled to receive it for simple tax purposes. I thought the requirement was rather clear that only for the purposes of assessing tax should anyone examine information in a tax return.
Security Intelligence Service
This Bill, as the Hon. Member knows, in fact breaches that general provision of the Income Tax Act as it presently exists. I believe I have rather clearly indicated that, to my mind, this has a detrimental effect, not only upon the rights of the citizen who filed the information, but has a further detrimental effect upon the whole self-assessment process.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his answer which does succintly clarify his intention on that point. I would ask him as well, apart from the income tax side of it, whether he considers it appropriate that under this Bill, if it is adopted, the security service could choose to investigate by intrusive methods, such as mail opening, people who support, for example, the campaign in Africa against apartheid.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is appropriate, as I have indicated, to examine for any purpose letters sent by any person, including those who might have made a political contribution to sustain the democratic government of El Salvador.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, as is rarely the case, perhaps I should say with respect to the Hon. Member, I certainly share many of the concerns he has expressed this morning and his philosophical approach.


Mr. Turner:: John, you are in trouble now.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On the question of access to information, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member that information should be held in confidence and should be used for the purpose for which it was intended. I would like the Hon. Member to elaborate on this particular point. The Hon. Member indicated clearly that it is his view that the new security intelligence agency should not have the power to open first-class mail in the absence of some suggestion that it contains some contraband, I suppose. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether, in addition to precluding access by the security intelligence agency to records of the Department of National Revenue, he would extend that to other records which are obtained by other federal Departments, such as family allowance records, records which are obtained as a result of an application for unemployment insurance benefits and records which are obtained by the Federal Business Development Bank. Would he preclude the new security intelligence agency from having access to those records as well?


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I identified two areas which I thought were matters of immediate concern. I based my attack upon the opening or gathering of information related to those two issues on the basis of either well established, recognized law in the general domain or statute law. What I am saying is that today it is an offence to disclose information to persons other than those entitled to use that information for the purpose of assessing tax. That would be a change in the statute law.
We recognize in Canada that treating letters in the mail as private communications has been sacrosanct. The Hon. Member asked me whether I would go beyond that and my

February 20, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
answer has to be this. I have not compiled, as he probably has, a list of a variety of information which would be available under this Bill but is not now available. I ask him: Is it not available because of the statute law or because of a well recognized principle known to all Canadians which ought not to be changed? If it is because of either of those two circumstances that the information cannot now be made available to the security service, then I would say it should not further be made available.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I thank the Hon. Member for his answer. In fact, as the McDonald Commission clearly documented, it is as a result of present statutory prohibitions that this information cannot be made available. I take it that the Hon. Member would continue those statutory prohibitions. He is indicating his agreement.
I would like to ask him to elaborate on the results of the householder questionnaire circulated in his constituency. He touched briefly on that. Given the fact the Hon. Member made the effort to seek the views of his constituents on this important matter, then perhaps he might go into the outcome of that questionnaire at some greater length.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted. I should have referred to it when I brought it up initially. The result of my tabulation is that my constituents opposed, by a ratio of two to one, making available to the service tax information and census material. It is true this Bill precludes the service from gaining census information. Accordingly, I suppose the result is somewhat coloured. I did not break it down in the questionnaire and ask if they were opposed to tax information and were they opposed to census information. They simply expressed the view of being opposed to both.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the results because we have not heard from any Liberal Members except the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary on this legislation. It seems they are not too keen to defend the principle of this Bill.
Does the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble) believe that the new civilian security service should have the power to place under surveillance-setting aside the question of opening mail and access to Government records-groups in Canada which seek to support the African National Congress campaign in South Africa against apartheid? Does he believe they should be placed under surveillance or that the security service should have the power to place such groups under surveillance in Canada?


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, it would depend indeed upon the circumstances involved in the activity of any representative of that group in this country. We know there are laws in Canada-I refer to the Immigration Act-which establish a number of prohibited classes of visitors to Canada. If they have come to Canada for the purpose of advocating the overthrow of a foreign government, they indeed would be, in my view, properly subject today to an examination and surveillance process instituted by the RCMP. Very clearly, then, if the RCMP can do it today, I would have no objection, having regard to the specific provisions of the Immigration Act which have some validity, to the security service doing the same kind of work in the future.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this subject matter has long been under consideration in this country. As far as this House is concerned, I suppose the problems of security were discovered when the McDonald Commission came into being. However, I can recall the decision to establish the security service under the RCMP with a civilian director. First, if I recall, it was General Dare and subsequently John Starnes.


Mr. Lawrence:: The other way around.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My colleague says it was the other way around and I stand corrected. But it goes a long way back. I think there is great confusion in the public mind, which is usually the result of a momentary glance at news headlines or some quick report on television; but there is no doubt in my mind that Canada needs a security agency. To say it is an intelligence gathering agency is to immediately stamp it, as those civil libertarians who want utter licence to prevail at all times would do, with the label of a government snoop agency burrowing into the innermost secrets of all Canadians for whatever purpose the active imagination may wish to bring forth.
Our history, Mr. Speaker, since World War II has been a joke in so far as security is concerned. Foreign governments have sent agents into this country to operate not necessarily against Canada but as a convenient base to operate against the United States. We became aware of this through the Gouzenko disclosures. But the country involved in that case, the Soviet Union, is not the only one to carry on nefarious activities in this country.
In every major security contest there has ever been, Canada has come out second simply because we did not have the resources or the determination to do something about it. I find it rather amusing that people are concerned about opening mail to see whether one supports apartheid or not, some church group or this or that. That is a silly froth on the subject. In so far as National Revenue is concerned, it opens mail; of course it does and it has a right to. It does not require a civilian agency to go and get a court order. I can see some people shaking their heads. They have never faced the problem of heroin importation by letter. It can be done and very simply. They have not faced the smuggling of almost pure gold in fine chains in a thick letter. They have not seen the absolute pornographic filth which comes in via the mail. It is not only mail; there are visual demonstrations of some of the most violent filth you can imagine. Perhaps some of the people who object to this privately enjoy viewing these, I do not know. 1 rather suspect that many of those who protest in print and otherwise protest too much. On the customs side it is not necessary. The authority is there. Under the Post Office Act it is rather stupid. The inspectors of the postal service have the
February 20, 1984

right to examine mail to see if it contains contraband. When they find contraband they write a letter to the addressee telling him there is a parcel for him coming from somewhere and to come and get it. Of course, the addressee is not going to go anywhere near the Post Office. They are then under instruction to return it to the sender. Of all the stupid things to do. I can only categorize that as stupid. That is an attempt to suborn legitimate law in the country. I defy any civil libertarian to say it is wrong to use means such as the censorship of mail by the appropriate officials to prevent the entry into Canada of narcotics and other attempts at smuggling.
In regard to the Income Tax Act, I agree that it has gone too far. I object to the agreement that was signed secretly between the RCMP and the Department of National Revenue and not disclosed until an admission was pulled from the lips of the then Minister, now Senator Guay, some years ago that it was possible for the RCMP to examine income tax files in an investigation of an offence under the Income Tax Act. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) knows this. Right away both the RCMP and the Department of National Revenue breached that agreement by doing something quite contrary to it.
This is precisely what many of the critics or potential critics of this Act are saying. In a criminal prosecution the income tax files of certain individuals were examined by the RCMP. The Anderson case is an example of that. That is wrong. The sooner the Solicitor General and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) come clean as to the exact status of that agreement today and its strict adherence, the better off we will be.
That is why I agree with my colleague from Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). This Act requires full examination by a committee of the House. We have seen security examined by the other place, by royal commissions and God knows what. The House of Commons, which is deemed by the people of Canada to represent them, must be able to get the views of a lot of people from one end of the country to the other. It is not sufficient for lobby groups and persons concentrated around Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto to give us the benefit of their views. A few of them give their views by way of briefs. Many of them give their views by reports of speeches, which are synthesized versions of what is said depending upon the views of the reporter.
I underline the absolute necessity, Mr. Speaker, when this legislation goes to committee, that the committee, composed of all Members of the House, shall then have an opportunity to go from Victoria to St. John's and hear what the people of Canada have to say about the important issue of a security agency for the country. By that I mean the relationship to government of what has to be a vital agency concerning individuals. We are attempting to protect the security of the country not only from boring in from the outside, but from activities within the country which include violent means,
Security Intelligence Service
uprisings and a variety of other illegal ways to overthrow government and create national confusion.
Having said that, I do not want to come down hard on either side. I would personally tend to favour a civilian agency with a director with much more responsibility to the Minister than is required under this Act. Mr. Speaker, one of the big problems we have had in the past 20 years is that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has not been responsible directly to the Minister; he has been made responsible to a Deputy Minister. I will admit that over the years the history of the Department of the Solicitor General has been somewhat unhappy in that, along with a few other ministries, it was one of the favourite stools in the game of ministerial musical chairs. The net result was that either new boys to Cabinet or people who could not do a job properly in a more senior position were allotted to the position of Solicitor General. Subordination to the Deputy Solicitor General and the nature of leadership did much to affect the morale all the way through the force.
Therefore I disagree with Clause 7 of the Bill which stipulates that the Director should consult the Deputy Minister about the general operational policies of the service. I suggest that that is nonsense. He is responsible to the Minister because there must be proper political direction. That clause merely reflects part of the mandarin desire to control everything here in Ottawa.
I agree with Clause 8 of the Bill. A service that is properly run by a good Director should choose its own people. The service's employees should not necessarily be tall, blonde and 22. They would meet the requirements of the RCMP and make excellent policemen. A security service should be made up of its own full-time employees rather than people who are seconded through a backdoor from another government agency. Those who work with a security agency must possess the best possible qualifications. Their qualifications include intelligence, language and many other factors but have very little to do with being trained for a national police force. The security service should not become an independent force with the power of arrest. I personally believe that that is the purpose of the RCMP and other police forces. Any suggestion that the security agency should be allowed to arrest people or take other police action which people may fear should be set aside at the beginning.
I have some personal knowledge about the attraction of the RCMP as a career for young men and women in this country. All of the offences laid against the RCMP as a result of the McDonald Commission related to security. The besmirching of the RCMP has discouraged many good recruits from joining that force. I will admit that present economic conditions do not allow for many vacancies and we read reports about the emptiness of the Regina police school. However, that is not the whole story.
Since my time is almost up, I would suggest to Hon. Members, even those who believe a central security agency or

February 20, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
even the RCMP are inherently bad because they often restrict the aspired licence of some individuals in this country, that I believe the majority of people in this country are in favour of an appropriate security agency. However, since we have not heard what all of the features of that agency should be, I agree with my colleague from Saskatoon that the committee should be given the authority to conduct hearings in all parts of Canada and report back when it has completed its work.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that he felt the new civilian security service should have certain powers to open first-class mail, particularly when there is a suspicion that there might be contraband in that mail. Does he agree with the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble) that the security service should not in fact have the power to open first-class mail when there is a suspicion that this mail may contain messages of a subversive nature? Does he believe that a distinction should be made between the suspicion of physical contraband being in a first-class envelope and the passing of messages, as his colleague for North York does, or does he believe that all first-class mail should be subject to opening by the new civilian security service?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: First, may I say that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) must have been looking at something else because I did not say that this agency should have the right to open correspondence or parcels with regard to contraband. There already are ample provisions within the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise and the post office for that purpose.
With respect to the suspicion of subversive messages, I find it difficult to answer that because there are pros and cons to the issue. Let us take a case in which correspondence contains codes and the results of espionage. Let us say that espionage is being carried out in the United States by another country and that a post office box in Canada is being used as a marshalling point for the transmission of such information. Surely if it became known to the security agency that this means was being used, would it not be proper for the agency to apply to a court to allow mail being delivered to a particular address to be subject to scrutiny? 1 am talking about national security. I can think of dozens of ways in which our country can be seen as the softest touch in the world for those engaged in international espionage.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member also dealt in his remarks with the question of the mandate of the new security service. He went to some length dealing with the powers that it might possess. Would he expand upon his views with respect to the mandate of the new security service? Of course, having read the legislation carefully, he is no doubt aware of what could happen to a group in his constituency under the provisions of this Bill. Take the example of a church group in Edmonton that decides it wants to send funds or other material assistance to a movement in Central America which is engaged in an attempt to overthrow one of the dictatorial, oppressive and violent governments there so as to liberate people from decades of economic and social oppression. A
Canadian group or individual who wants to support that particular organization would be subject to intrusive techniques being used against it or him, even though many of us would argue that this poses no threat whatsoever to the security of Canada and Canadians. I hear the Hon. Member from Mississauga suggesting it does. I would welcome the intervention of the Member from Mississauga in this debate on that point.
At this juncture in the debate I would like to ask the Hon. Member from Edmonton whether he shares the view of his colleague from Mississauga that such activities by Canadians in fact constitute a threat to the security of Canada and should subject those Canadians to the full range of intrusive powers available to the nearest new security service under the provisions of this legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the simple basis which the Hon. Member puts it forth, there is no threat to Canada within or even without. If a Canadian citizen feels he wants to send money to a particular group in a particular country, it is that person's business. But I will say this much. If he sends it to a church group that enjoys the status of a charitable organization under the Income Tax Act, 1 would say right away that that organization should be disqualified because it is not carrying on charitable or religious work in the accepted sense. It is carrying on political work in some other country and that is not within the ambit of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, a choice will have to be made. As a matter of fact, some of the so-called charitable organizations front for activities outside the country which are not charitable. The Hon. Member being a man well versed in the law, I would invite him to review the legislation and the court cases with regard to what is the meaning of "charity" in the legal sense. It is not "benevolent" or "useful" but charitable within the meaning of the Act. Then that will follow.
But let us go on and develop the theme beyond what the Hon. Member suggested. He set a simplistic problem. I do not want my answer to be taken as a simplistic approval of a much bigger thesis, because there may be a point of halt. May I say that I would certainly have legislation available-and this may be something we may have to consider here-that in the event hostility should break out involving Canada, or a serious threat of hostility, all of this goes by the board. Many of these safeguards have to go by the board. The Hon. Member is too young to have gone through World War II. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that so many of the things that he and some of his colleagues seem to want and insist upon-I do not know, but I suppose acquired rights-in wartime just do not exist. The national will says that the thing to do is survive, and that has to be understood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The period for questions has ended.
February 20, 1984


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be willing to commence my remarks now or call it one o'clock, depending upon the will of the House.


Mr. Kaplan:: No, it is 12.55 p.m.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I am happy to speak to Bill C-9 and to address the three basic questions that are in the Bill. First is a proposed mandate to set up a new civilian service in Canada for the purpose of intelligence operations. Second is to look at the powers that it is suggested the service will have. Third is to look at the oversight and accountability mechanisms that would be established in the Bill or that are established there now to see that the Bill functions and that the service is given limits of operation.
I want to address the Bill from a philosophical point of view. I would also like to use some of my experience, having lived in countries where intelligence services had a very high profile. I felt that instead of bringing security to people, it brought great insecurity.
I do believe this Bill and its notion is one that has grave concerns for many Canadians. I have addressed various audiences on the background notion of what is taking place in the Bill being proposed. I think it is important, to begin with, to look at the word "security". I personally believe its English context has changed in the last 15 years. When I was younger, security, I believe, meant a state of well-being that one experienced because of a whole variety of conditions that were present at that time in the person's life. Today security, 1 believe, means a process by which you guard something or set up walls against insecurity.
Let me outline a case in point. This House of Commons until recently did not have a security system. People coming to sit and watch in the galleries did not have to pass a screening to come into the galleries. People now have to go through mechanical surveillance similar to those installed at airports. However, I feel no more secure in this House of Commons from some attack against my person. In fact, I feel less secure than before.
The question has been thrown into the minds of many people, are we secure here? We had an incident a few weeks ago. A person came to the door at the end of the morning session. Our caucus was sitting here. The person tried to get in. The guards, the security people, whoever, took the person away. During Question Period the same afternoon the same person appeared at the door upstairs and had in her hand a bundle which she threw into the centre of the House of Commons. The proceedings carried on. I am sure many people watching television did not know anything had happened. It turned out the bundle was not a dangerous weapon or anything of the sort, but if it had been, that person had actually passed through security and had put us all into great insecurity.
1 have watched this process grow. I have seen how people put a wall around something to make it secure. Then someone Finds a hole in the wall and one then has to erect another wall. A place where this wall building has taken place is the airport
at Tel Aviv, Israel. Wall after wall after wall have been put up to accommodate this word security.
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to address the philosophical notion behind security after the lunch hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that achievements in any walk of life are a result of team effort. No man or woman achieves greatness by himself or herself, especially in an Olympic sport where it takes a complete effort by a dedicated coach who believes in the ability of his athlete, the support and encouragement of team-mates who know the individual has the "right stuff' to conquer the world, the love and encouragement of parents and relatives who know the hard work required to produce an Olympic medal athlete, and the proud support of the community which recognizes one of its own who brings honour to the community.
Those ingredients were all there last week, but they would not have come together without a supreme, championship effort by one individual, a true world champion. I ask the House to recognize the athlete himself, silver medal winner, men's figure skating champion, 1984 Olympics, from the riding of Simcoe North, Brian Orser.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FRANCO-MANITOBANS' RIGHTS POSITION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, during the weekend, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party tried once again to obscure the issue of French rights in Manitoba when he stated that his Party's dissenting Members had decided officially to toe the Party line. The Leader of the

February 20, 1984
Opposition forgot to tell the whole truth, however. First, this is not the first time the Members for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and Simcoe-South (Mr. Stewart) have spoken out against bilingualism in Canada, and the token statement made by one of the Members sounds like a strategic ploy. Second, only one Member made a public statement last Wednesday, and the Member for Simcoe-South does not seem to have made anything public yet. Third, Canadians would like to know what is happening to the McKenzie-Stewart fund, a subject that concerns all Canadians and which demands clarification.
The Leader of the Opposition should show the same courage and firmness displayed by the Party in power. Once again for the Progressive Conservatives, it was too little, too late.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) took off his rose-coloured glasses and saw the economic situation of the country as it really is. Fie has been raving recently about the fact that we are finally emerging from the doom and gloom of the recession, to a new dawn. In his Budget speech he quoted Figures which show that inflation is slowing and that interest rates are falling.
Will he now admit that everything is not sweetness and light? Is he aware that the jobless rate in the Niagara region is now at an unbelievable 17 per cent? Even taking into consideration the traditional winter slowdown in the economy, this is too high, and unacceptable.
The human tragedy is enormous. The Liberals have been in power for four years, and today we have 514,000 more jobless than when they took over. I believe that this is, in no small measure, due to the Budgets which have been tabled during that time. The Special Recovery Program is clearly a recovery for the rich and a sham for the poor.
In the Niagara region alone there were 10,499 on welfare last month. That is a lot of mouths to feed. If these people had work, they would be more than happy to take it. Yet there is no work. The Minister of Finance has failed to address the serious issue of job creation.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in 1968 the Beatles released a delightful movie entitled The Yellow Submarine. Through song, a story was told about the struggle between the forces of
good and evil. The villains in this work of fiction were the Blue Meanies, who were eventually vanquished by the good citizens of Pepperland.
It is now 16 years later, and we hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Opposition finance critic, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), condemning the Government for not immediately reducing the deficit in last Wednesday's Budget. When asked what the Opposition would do about the deficit, the Hon. Member for St. John's West said, "You have to be mean, nasty, and do all sorts of unpleasant things .. . that's why I'm not going to outline what"-Tory policies-"would be now". From this it is clear that the Blue Meanies are back in human form, but now it is the people of Canada who face the insidious nightmare.
The chief Blue Meanie and his corpulent, evil-tempered henchman from St. John's West, are the rampage. They are joined by the "slasher" from York-Peel and the "sour sacker" from Capilano. Together they are Canada's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". People of Canada, rally to the defence of the social safety net, and demand that the mean, nasty and unpleasant people across the floor come clean with their plans for the future of our country.



PARLIAMENT OF CANADA


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to take part in an argument. In fact I am not even trying to predict the date of the federal election, whatever that date may be. However, it seems important to me that newspapers keep the rules straight on how the date plan is decided.
In this connection I draw attention to the fact that in 1930 there was an election whereby the Seventeenth Parliament was elected. That vote took place on July 28, 1930, and it was gazetted on August 15, 1930. Four years later R. B. Bennett decided that he wanted to delay the election, but he accepted the fact that because of the rule Parliament had to be dissolved on August 14, 1935. Then Mr. Bennett set the election date for October 14, 1935. I remember the date very well. Even though I was only 27 years of age, I ran in the general election that day and lost. At any rate, the Seventeenth Parliament lasted five years and two months, from one election to another.
Then in 1940 there was voting for the Nineteenth Parliament. That election was called on Tuesday, March 26, 1940, and it was gazetted on April 15, 1940. The result of that was that in 1945 the Nineteenth Parliament was dissolved on April 16 because it was a Monday, April 15 being a Sunday. Then it was arranged that the voting would take place on June 11, 1945. That was one of the elections I won. So did the Liberal Government.
These are two examples of the Government delaying for the full term of five years and two months. There are no other occasions of this, except in 1917 for the war election during
February 20, 1984

World War I. It is an established fact that Government can wait five years and a bit longer.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Let him continue.


Mr. Speaker:: He may continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just want to make the point that the present Government was elected on February 18, 1980, and was gazetted on March 10, 1980. That means, therefore, that it has agreed that Parliament is dissolved on March 10, 1985, and it could set the election two months later, which would make it in May, 1985.
I am not trying to predict the election date. I am just asking the newspapers and those who look at this matter to understand what is the rule. The only other point I would like to make is that perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, would like to predict what will be the date of the next election. Or I wonder if you will guess it.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous and unbelievable that the Government has the audacity to spend $275,000 flagrantly to build overhangs which will protect the Speakers of both Chambers from the Canadian weather, while at the same time it allows millions of unemployed and poor Canadians to face high costs, zero job availability and creation-are you listening, John-and the impending harsh reality that the present is bleak, and the future, if under the selfish Liberal Government, holds no hope for improvement.
On behalf of the poor and the unemployed of the country I condemn this irresponsible, insulting Government for its foolish extravagance, when this money could be well used in many ways to assist those who cannot afford food or basic daily essentials. Certainly most cannot afford to build $275,000 porches onto their shelters. Quite bluntly, the Government's priorities are in the wrong order and are disgusting, repulsive, and blatantly insulting to all Canadians.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) announced the date for the presentation of his Budget, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), the temporary member for Central Nova, immediately cried foul.
He went so far as to call it a cheap shot on the part of the Government to introduce a budget when the Leader of the Opposition was planning to be in Europe.
We all know the grandstanding of the Hon. Member for Central Nova. He would cancel his trip to Europe because, for him, the Budget and the economy of this country were his main concern, and discussing the Budget and the economy should be a top priority. Well, the Budget was in fact presented on Wednesday, February 15, and the Leader of the Opposition has not been seen in the House since. Would it be fair to assume that he is changing his priorities?



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's fledgling computer software industry is being threatened with extinction, and two recent events have shown that the Cabinet lacks even a basic understanding of the situation.
One of these events is actually a non-event, arising from last week's Budget. It was a non-event because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) failed to change the income tax definition in order to extend research and development benefits to the development of computer software, this despite a discussion paper and a task force that flowed from the previous Budget.
The other event of importance is the proposal currently before the Japanese Government that would require the compulsory licensing of computer software ideas from outside Japan to any Japanese company. Such a measure could decimate Canada's chances of marketing a universe of unique products, not only in Japan but anywhere in the world. Telidon is a prime example of the kind of Canadian idea that could be lost by this legislation.
When my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin raised this matter in the House a few days ago, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) appeared not to know anything about it, even though numerous articles have appeared in the popular press, including Business Week. The Economist, and The New York Times. High-level delegations from other countries, including the United States, have visited Japan to make representations over this serious problem, but not a word from our Government. I know-


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



EMPLOYMENT


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, recently a book entitled "Jobs Canada", published by a non-profit group

February 20, 1984
in Toronto called Bridging the Gap, is being distributed to 2.5 million Canadians. It is a glossy publication. It is supposed to be non-governmental, but it contains a picture of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), and obviously has government plans for the unemployed.
A reporter has indicated some of the jobs given in the booklet are air traffic controllers, bartenders, and newspaper editors. I would like to say that in general it is "Alice in Wonderland".
I received a letter today, and a telephone call from some students at the University of Saskatchewan in the engineering faculty. Blake Rooks indicates that of 60 mechanical engineers in his class, three have jobs; of approximately 30 civil engineers, none have jobs; there are 17 agricultural engineers, and three have jobs; of 30 geology engineers, none have jobs. That is the reality. The Government has to look to the real world where people are unemployed. There has been no recovery, certainly no recovery for students, and no recovery for those on unemployment insurance. We have to tell our Government to deal with the real world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



FORESTRY


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's forest industry is suffering from a decade of neglect. The Government has demonstrated total disregard for our most precious renewable resource and our most important national industry. Only last week it was announced that negotiations between the federal Government and the Government of British Columbia had collapsed and a long-term cost-sharing agreement for forest renewal in B.C. could not be reached. Long-term planning and positive vision have given way completely to short-term patchwork programs and band-aid crisis management.
British Columbia's professional foresters met in Vancouver last week. Their general meeting was entitled "Our Forests in Crisis". They realize that the forest industry has been brought to the brink of disaster in Canada. They realize that Canada's forest industry is quickly dying. They also realize that prompt action, long-term commitments and political will can prevent the total collapse of the forest industry. They talked of standing on the threshold of the opportunity of our lifetime. They know that the social welfare extravaganza has to end and that real action has to be taken to set our priorities and preserve our lifeblood industries.
Canadians can be put back to work in productive industries like forestry. They do not have to rely on government make-work projects to survive. The time is now. We must reverse the trend and set Canada back on the track toward prosperity.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRANCE

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery of a delegation of members of the Foreign Affairs Commission and the National Defence and Armed Forces Commission of the French National Assembly.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. At a post-Budget briefing session with the press last Thursday, the Minister said that his Budget is not having any effect on the Canadian economy and that this makes him happy. There are 1,473,000 unemployed Canadians who are not happy. With new signs of a stalling recovery, with orders for durable goods having fallen 1.1 per cent in December, factory production having dropped in November, disappointing sales at Christmas time, and CPI figures now rousing alarm about the dangers of renewed inflation, why did the Minister bring in a do-nothing Budget with the number of unemployed so high and so many signs that the recovery is faltering?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had bothered to read the press reports carefully, he would have seen that what I indicated was not that the Budget would have no impact on the economy but that there was no immediate large impact on the performance in the market, on interest rates or on the exchange value. I indicated that this is very much what I intended to see happening. I intended to make sure that the growth we had known in 1983 would be pursued in 1984, since what the country needs is stability and continuity in policy. I indicated that I expected that the rate of growth in 1984 would be around 5 per cent, after having been 3 per cent in 1983, and that employment in 1984 would grow by a strong 3.5 per cent. The reaction of the markets to the budget has been the one I hoped for and anticipated. Indeed, in 1984 I expect to see the continuation of a strong recovery and that the economy will grow from the phase of recovery into a phase of strong expansion in 1984.


UNEMPLOYMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let's see if the Minister will answer a question. In his Budget of
February 20, 1984

April 17 he said his dominant concern was "to help the more than 1.5 million Canadians who want to work but cannot". That Budget did not help them; 1,473,000 are still unemployed. He is forecasting that the unemployed average will remain at 1,336,000 this year, and that in 1988 there will still be over 1,100,000 unemployed. May I ask the Minister with his do-nothing Budget, what is his dominant concern now? It is certainly not jobs for the unemployed. What is his dominant concern with this Budget, with 1,500,000 still unemployed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has quoted a number of figures. I draw to his attention that, on a year-to-year basis, manufacturers' shipments rose by 17.2 per cent, new orders rose by 20.7 per cent, and unfilled orders rose by 30 per cent between December, 1982, and December, 1983. There was a very strong recovery in the Canadian economy at that time.
The Hon. Member refers to the number of unemployed, and again I have to remind him that in Canada last year we created 400,000 jobs. It is true that unemployment has remained high, although it is declining, but we have the fastest growing labour force of any industrialized country. This is a fact that is there for everyone to see.
The Government is pursuing an active policy of encouraging the creation of jobs by the private sector as fast as it can be done. It is also providing leadership in the public sector by increasing its spending. This year, for instance, the Government will spend over $525 million more than it did last year in creating jobs directly and indirectly, in spite of the fact that it is trying to keep the federal deficit under control and under restraint.
Finally, I have to suggest to my hon. friend that perhaps he could tell the Canadian public what the tough, mean and nasty things are that he would do, and that he refused to tell the Canadian public last week after the Budget.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the main nasty thing would be to kick out this Government.


ECONOMIC FORECASTS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, you cannot get blood from a turnip, and you cannot get an answer from one either. The Minister has very optimistic economic forecasts in his Budget. He forecast economic real growth of 3.8 per cent on average in the next five years. Last Thursday when he was asked about those forecasts he said, "Frankly, who knows?" with a famous Gallic shrug. "Frankly, who knows?"
May I ask the Minister if any credence can be put in these forecasts that he is basing the anticipated level of unemployment on, since he has no faith in them? If they are not accurate, what will happen to his unemployment projections
Oral Questions
which are already horrendous? What will happen to the Canadian economy?


Mr. Nielsen:: Who knows?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend would like to take a look at the forecast given by a number of professionals in the field, both in Canada and in the United States. A few weeks ago, President Reagan tabled in the House of Representatives his own forecasts for the American economy over the next few years. The President's prediction for this year, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 is a growth rate identical to that expected for Canada, namely, 4 per cent.
I may remind my hon. friend that the performance of Canada's economy often runs parallel to that of the U.S. economy, and that the forecasts presented by the Government of Canada are based on studies made by professionals in the field, as they are in the United States, or by international organizations such as the OECD, which did, in fact, predict a growth rate of 4.9 per cent, identical to my own forecast for 1984.
However, if my hon. friend thinks we can guarantee these figures for 1988, he is being less than reasonable. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that these predictions are not necessarily over-optimistic. Last year, I brought down a Budget with a number of forecasts, and the Opposition said my predictions were too optimistic. In fact, the economy performed even better than I had expected.
Consequently, I hope that by continuing the policies we have put in place and with the important measures this Government has taken in the economic sphere, we shall improve on our forecast, as we did in 1983.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. At a time when, according to the prognostications in the Budget of the Minister of Finance, the best scenario we can anticipate is 1.1 million unemployed Canadians for at least the next four years, how can the Minister justify funding and putting out the Jobs Canada magazine by a group called Bridging the Gap? This is a good news publication and indicates that anyone in Canada who wants work should be able to find it. And it was vetted by the Minister's officials. How can the Minister justify that expenditure of money on this kind of publication which is going to 2.6 million Canadian households, when the money could be better directed to the interests of the unemployed?

February 20, 1984
Oral Questions


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can do that quite easily.


Mr. McDermid:: It was a bad picture of you.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. gentleman says it was a bad picture of me. That may very well be right, but that is of absolutely no importance in terms of what we are trying to do.
Members on all sides of the House have urged us, and I think quite rightly-


John Carnell Crosbie: You should have had the Minister of Finance on there.


John (Moody) Roberts: -to mount better efforts to communicate the range of programs that we have under the Employment and Immigration Commission so that the clientele we could potentially serve would better know what programs are available to them. In this particular case the publication put out by a voluntary group is one in which we have advertised, it is true, but far from the majority of the costs of the issue are being supported by us. The majority of the costs are being met by others.
The publication brings together very useful information for young people and others who are seeking employment opportunities and seeking to know what services the Government of Canada provides to assist them in their search for jobs. It seems to me to be extremely useful.
I think it would be silly of the hon. gentleman to urge that we should mount programs and then not undertake expenditures to ensure that those programs are communicated effectively to the public they are intended to serve. In this case I hope the Hon. Member has read the publication. I hope his question leads more people to be aware of it and to consult it. I am convinced it is the kind of information which we should provide to Canadians.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the advice given in the magazine with the approbation of the Minister, he could well be prosecuted for violation of truth in advertising.


JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPENDITURE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister how he can justify another example of lavish and elaborate patronage? How can he justify this thinly transparent Liberal propaganda, indeed, propaganda possibly for the Minister's own run at the leadership of the Liberal Party? How can he justify this in a time of restraint, particularly when there is so much to do in the country for the 1.5 million unemployed? According to the Conference Board of Canada that number will rise in 1985. How can the Minister justify this kind of action?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's questions are even more absurd than they usually are. What this is, in effect, is a
means of communicating to Canadians what programs are available for their use. It has that purpose, and it is effective.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know, I am sure, that in the Hamilton area 50 per cent of all construction workers are out of work, 70 per cent of electricians are looking for employment, and 20 per cent of all steelworkers are out of work. The unemployment rate in the area is substantially higher than it ought to be. These people do not qualify for the Government's recently announced new RRSP program; they do not qualify for the reduction in income tax that the doctors, lawyers, accountants and consultants qualify for, down to 15 per cent; in fact they do not even qualify for unemployment insurance.
Given that the Minister has previously indicated his concern for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own, who do not qualify for UIC, and for whom no work is currently available, why was there nothing in the Budget to help those people?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member probably made a very short reading of the Budget, because the Budget had something. As I indicated in my answer to the Hon. Member for St. John's West, the federal Government is going to spend over $500 million more in 1984 than it spent in 1983 in direct and indirect job creation. This is a significant addition to the total amount we are providing to help alleviate the problem of unemployment. Our expenditures on training, direct job creation and capital expenditure are going to run into several billions of dollars in 1984. That addition of over $500 million is a significant addition, taking into account the constraints under which we are all operating in terms of availability of funds.
The Hon. Member says that the Budget contained nothing for those people who have exhausted their UIC, but I would remind him that programs already exist for these people. In particular there is the Canada Assistance Plan, to which the federal Government is contributing 50 per cent to the provincial Governments for whatever assistance they are providing. As a matter of fact our expenditures under that program have increased by several hundreds of millions over the last few years. These programs which are being provided by the Provinces are cost shared by the federal Government to the tune of 50 per cent.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister appears to be saying that the only hope for those who cannot find employment, and who are unable to collect unem-
February 20, 1984

ployment insurance benefits because they have received unemployment insurance benefits for the last year to a year and a half, is that they go on welfare.
When people have contributed to their own well-being all of their lives, have worked every single day since they were in their teens, and now find themselves in their middle fifties out of work, unable to draw unemployment insurance benefits, with children still in school, and their spouse not earning enough to maintain the family, is it reasonable to expect that these people must lose everything for which they have worked simply because this Government is so blind that it cannot see that they need some assistance now?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is again distorting what I said. I indicated that there are a number of programs and expenditures by the federal Government in terms of direct job creation, and in terms of additional expenditures by the federal Government to the tune of over $525 million more than last year. We are doing everything we can in that regard. However, the Hon. Member also must recognize that the federal Government- any Government-cannot guarantee to every Canadian who is unemployed that he can have a job tomorrow morning, or even next month. No one can guarantee that.
What we are trying to do is to speed up as much as possible the activities taking place in the private sector. The measures I announced in the Budget, in terms of helping small business and medium size business, in particular, and the measures I announced in the last Budget, which are also effective-and many of them are going to have their main effect in 1984 rather than in 1983-all of these measures should lead to a high rate of job creation in the private sector.
In the meantime we have not only direct job-creation programs, but we have programs for the retraining of workers, and programs to help the mobility of people, helping them look for jobs in other areas. We have all those programs which are in operation and for which there are billions of dollars being made available during the course of 1984-85. We are doing everything we can because we share the concern for these people with the Hon. Member. However, the fact is that, unless one is a charlatan, one cannot guarantee that this problem will be resolved tomorrow morning. It will take time, unfortunately, and 1 regret it every day, but we are doing everything we can.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may well be right. Many of those people cannot find employment because there are no jobs. That is the premise upon which I have based the questions 1 have asked since last December.


BUDGET'S TAX PROPOSALS
Ian Deans: Now, what I ask the Minister is this: is it fair to turn around and give to doctors, lawyers, consultants, accountants and oil companies, tax breaks totalling into the billions of dollars, and then to tax average Canadians this year an additional $1 billion, and say
Oral Questions
to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own and who cannot Find work because, as the Minister says, there is no work for them, that they must lose everything they have ever worked for, simply because this Government would rather help its friends than help those who need it most?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is once again indulging in rhetoric and demagoguery. I may remind him that the federal Government's additional expenditures for this year, which are in the Budget I brought down last week, are directed basically to the people who are in greatest need. We have about $450 million in additional expenditures for 1984, if I remember correctly in any case, we can check the exact figures. However, what I want to point out is that the vast majority of these funds are aimed at people in need. Two hundred and fifty million dollars for Canadians over 65 who are alone and who live in poverty. One hundred and fifty million dollars for unemployed youth. Therefore, if we look at the expenditure increase for 1984-85, the Hon. Member will have to admit that practically all additional expenditures for 1984-85 will be used to help the people who are in greatest need in our country. All my hon. friend has to do is to look at the expenditure plan for 1984-85.
As far as the expenditure and fiscal plans for subsequent years are concerned, there again, my hon. friend will have to admit that this Government is trying to put on an equal footing those people who are employed by businesses and whose pensions are covered by their employer, and people who are self-employed, whether they are professionals or farmers, fishermen, small businessmen or workers who are not covered by pension funds at this time. We are trying to achieve the objective of equal sharing of opportunities within our society.


FINANCE
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I must say that if the Minister expects the private sector to deliver a sustained recovery, lower, stable interest rates are absolutely essential.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: On Friday last, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance refused to tell us the interest rate used in the projection of debt service charges in his fiscal plan. He inferred that such information would spook the capital markets. Given the fact that United States Budget projections each year project the 91-day Treasury Bill interest rate ahead three years, and in this past Budget, ahead to 1989, at which time interest rates will be down to 5 per cent, can the Minister tell us why the secrecy here in Canada? Why can we not be trusted with this type of information, particularly when the

February 20, 1984
Oral Questions
U.S. is prepared to publish its research and figures for the whole world to see? Is there any substance to the Minister's figures, or are we just facing more flim-flam?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that it is important to bring interest rates down. The fact is that this Government has done quite a job in that regard over the last few years.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Not only have we brought interest rates down-


John Horton McDermid: You had a job getting them up to 22 per cent.


Marc Lalonde: -but we have reduced, and in fact practically eliminated the spread which existed between the U.S. rate and the Canadian rate. The prime rates today at banks in Canada are the same as in the United States. They have been the same since last fall. This is something which we have achieved. For the Conservatives to say that something must be done about interest rates, 1 would have to remind them about an important statement-


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: -which was made in this House, which was, "No one wants high interest rates. So it is not the policy of the Government to have high interest rates. It is a condition which the Government cannot do anything about at the monent." That statement was made by the Hon. Member for St. John's West, who is sitting across the aisle, on November 15, 1979.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: It is not the policy of this Government that nothing can be done about it.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have had four years to do something.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: We on this side of the House have done a lot about it, Mr. Speaker. As far as the point raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, I must tell him that we are following the same policy which was followed by the former Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, when he was in office. These figures have been considered internal to the administration of Government and it is not judged to be in the public interest-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -to provide speculators in the market with possible information as to what will happen with interest rates. Let them make their own judgment. This is the best way to protect the public interest.


Erik Nielsen: Call an election.


INTEREST RATES ON LONG-TERM GOVERNMENT BONDS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that in the United States interest rates on 91-day Treasury Bills are published each year all the way through to 1989, at which time they project they will be down to 5 per cent, and in light of the fact that the Canadian Government is now selling five-year non-callable bonds to yield 11 per cent, nine-year bonds to yield 11.5 per cent, and 21-year bonds- non-callable, I might remind you, Mr. Speaker-to yield 12 per cent, why does the Minister say that interest rates are expected to decline in his fiscal plan?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, answer that one.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why does the Minister keep saying that? Why does he keep heaping this rhetoric on the Canadian public when the facts just do not live up to what he is saying?


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


Erik Nielsen: Tell the truth. Come clean.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Hon. Member quote those American figures indicating that interest rates are going to decline in the United States-


John Carnell Crosbie: They are going to go up here.


Marc Lalonde: -and yet refusing to recognize that if they decline in the United States there is every likelihood that they will decline also in Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why are we paying 12 per cent?


Marc Lalonde: This is what the policy of this Government has been, to try to exploit all the room possible for manoeuvring vis-a-vis U.S. interest rates. We have succeeded in reaching a point where our interest rates are at par with or in some cases below the United States. This is thanks to the policy this Government has followed, and we intend to follow that policy. Any decline in the U.S. rates that the Hon. Member has referred to will be followed in Canada, I am sure.


FINANCE
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Finance.
On December 20, 1983, the Minister of Agriculture made payments to apple growers in Eastern Canada to compensate them for 50 per cent of the losses they had suffered as a result of freezing temperatures during the 1980-81 winter, through a special assistance program designed to help Quebec and
February 20, 1984

Ontario apple growers who produce the best tasting apples in Canada if not the whole world.
Mr. Speaker, we had been led to believe that these payments would be non taxable. Apparently, there is now some confusion arising from the replies made by some Revenue Canada officials. I would like the minister to clear this confusion, so that apple growers may know where they stand as they are about to prepare their income tax returns for last year. Mr. Speaker, we hope also that the Quebec government will not try to get its cut.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the Hon. Member that these compensation payments made to apple growers for losses resulting from frost a couple of years ago are not considered as income and are not to be included in the growers' taxable income.
The frost and the ensuing loss of apple trees have had the effect of lowering the value of these properties, so that the base for capital assessment of the said properties is lower. But as far as the compensation payments from the Canadian government are concerned, they are not added to the income of apple growers and are not taxable.


NATIONAL REVENUE
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. When questioned on Friday as to why personnel reviews in Revenue Canada are being amended without prior knowledge of the employees, the Minister passed it off by suggesting that I attend his Estimates Committee meeting. This is too important an issue to be passed to the bureaucracy so the Minister can escape his responsibility. Both I and the Canadian people want to know who gave the order that the personnel files of Revenue Canada auditors be examined and that all references to goals be removed from their work reviews?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to check the details mentioned in the Hon. Member's question. I wanted to do so this morning but unfortunately I did not have time.


AUTHORIZATION FOR ALTERATION OF RECORDS
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I might be able to help the Minister. I have a personnel assessment of an auditor which was completed, signed, and receipted in August of 1983. On January 20, 1984, an amended form was forwarded to the employee, together with a
Oral Questions
covering memo which stated in part, "basically the change was an improvement over the original wording . .. something to do with an 'erroneous' reference to a set 'standard' rate".
I ask again: who gave the order to have these personnel records altered? Was it the Minister? Was it the Prime Minister? Was it the Deputy Minister? Who gave the order to remove all reference to "quotas" or to "set standard rates" for auditors? Come clean with the Canadian people.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated to the Hon. Member that I have to check the fact which he has just drawn to my attention. Considering my previous answer, he will understand that I cannot answer his second question.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. The NDP is shocked to learn that the Office of Equal Opportunities for Women in the Public Service Commission is to be closed on April 1. This will mean 95,000 women clerks and secretaries in the Public Service will lose the one central office which acts as a watchdog for their concerns within government. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intends to shut down this important service for women on April 1 ?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, heard that rumour on Friday and was most alarmed, so I checked with the Public Service Commission and got a report on the situation. The Commission is attempting to add strength to its previous efforts by adopting new special measures and by examining the possibility of transferring the present functions of the Office of Equal Opportunities for Women into the operating branches of the Commission where more direct influence can be exerted on the operational processes such as recruitment, referral, counselling, and training, as well as in the policy-setting functions. However, there is no intention to close that office on April 1. There is a policy under way to re-examine how best the office can be strengthened within the new affirmative action program. I would like to add that the present regional equal opportunities offices functions are not under review at this time, will not be closed, and there will be no jobs lost in the procedure.


EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister should know that the affirmative action program does not offer the extensive training, educational,

February 20, 1984
Oral Questions
counselling and advocacy functions of the present department.
1 would like to know her personal position on this. It does not seem to me that to put this within existing departments achieves the function it is supposed to achieve.
Does the Minister agree that the Office is particularly important in view of the recent Labour Canada report confirming that the federal Government is not enforcing equal pay for work of equal value guidelines? Will the Minister initiate action immediately to reduce the over $7,000 wage gap which still exists between men and women in the Public Service?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Member has brought the subject up because it debunks the popular myth that the moment equal pay for work of equal value legislation is brought in, the world will collapse and we cannot afford to do it. It is proof indeed that the legislation must first be in place and that those affected must seek to have the rules applied. I do insist that this kind of legislation be applied throughout the country and that those women most affected make sure that in their next labour contract the equal pay for work of equal value legislation be applied. I want to reiterate that only 10 per cent of the work force is covered by this legislation, 90 per cent comes under provincial jurisdiction, and I urge the women of this country to bring about such legislation within their provincial boundaries.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA HEADED BY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HIS EXCELLENCY RODRIGO LLOREDA CAICEDO
Mr. Speaker:: May I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from the Republic of Colombia headed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Rodrigo Lloreda Caicedo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. For the past three months he has refused to acknowledge that there is a malignant attitude existing in his Department. The most telling and striking example that I can think of was the one printed in The Globe and Mail last Saturday. A senior supervisory official, the Chief of Audit, sponsored a contest. The contestants were 20 groups of auditors comprising eight or nine auditors each. The prize was a $50 lunch. The standards imposed were a maximum recovery of tax dollars, maximum penalization of taxpayers, and how quickly the files could be processed. What this senior supervisor was really doing was
putting a bounty on the taxpayers of Canada. Is the story as reported in The Globe and Mail accurate? Did such a memorandum exist? The context was that this was renewable every quarter. Is this $50 lunch still the practice of the Toronto Department?
Who paid for the lunch? Was it going to be the Chief of Audit or the Department? Does the Minister approve of such contests as illustrated in the story in The Globe and Mail?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should really ask only one question.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, in his first question, the Hon. Member asked whether the story reported in the press is accurate. It is not entirely accurate. Second, he asked how long the contest between a number of auditors went on. According to my information, it was suggested in August 1983 and it ended in December 1983. The Hon. Member also asked who paid for the prize awarded in the contest. No public funds were used. The Director of this group of auditors spent money out of his own pocket to reward the good work done by the auditing group he had to supervise.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just substantially acknowledged the accuracy of the story. The story is absolutely the most disgraceful thing, because it puts a bounty on the taxpayers of Canada. This is the rule, not the exception, and that is what I want to get through to the Minister.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY-REPORTING STATUS OF DEPUTY MINISTER
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question has to do with ministerial responsibility. It has come to my attention that the Minister's predecessor, presently the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, had a conflict with his Deputy Minister. The conflict was in regard to whom the Deputy Minister reported to. Did he report to the Minister or to the Prime Minister of Canada through the Clerk of the Privy Council? I understand there was a memorandum of law composed by a Mr. William Rowe as a result of this dispute. Would the Minister inform me and other Members of the House whether, in matters of operation, the Deputy Minister reports to him or to the Prime Minister's Office? Will he table in the House the legal opinion with respect to the responsibilities of the Deputy Minister in the day-to-day operation of his Department?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, first, I believe the Hon. Member is aware of the practice that legal opinions formulated for a Minister are not
February 20, 1984

tabled in the House. I think that, with his experience in the House of Commons, he should have known that.
Furthermore, I said the story reported in the press was not accurate. I would like to point out that two factors were considered by the Director who set up the contest. First of all, penalty points were given to auditors who kept taxpayers' Files for review, in their offices, for more than sixty days. I fail to see how this could harm the interests of the taxpayer. On the contrary, the auditor was motivated to finish his work quickly and to return the file as soon as possible to the businesses concerned who would need the papers themselves.
I will give another example, and I hope the Hon. Member will listen carefully. The auditors were also given penalty points when correspondence sent to taxpayers did not meet the standards of excellence set by the supervisor. Here again, we see the same concern for providing taxpayers with a good and quick service and for treating taxpayers like human beings. This is the exact opposite of the twisted picture the Hon. Member has given of the activity initiated by an audit director.

[English}


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it was brought to my attention on the weekend that a list of the unemployed in the federal riding of Peterborough has been published and circulated to the principals of the eight high schools in my area. This list includes social insurance numbers, age, number of weeks on unemployment, number of weeks insurance was collected, along with addresses and names. The principals of high schools in my area, as a pilot test centre for Canada, have been asked to give back the lists of those people on the unemployment list.
I have here 11 sheets of a computer printout. These people are now being matched with the enrolments in the high schools in the Peterborough federal riding. Is this your policy? Did you, as Minister of Employment and Immigration, instigate this underhanded method of trying to disclose unethically the list of the unemployed in my federal riding of Peterborough?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I heard of these allegations to which the Hon. Member has referred for the first time this morning. The allegations concern me very much if they turn out to be entirely accurate. I have given instructions to my officials to ascertain exactly what the facts of the situation are, and to report to me as quickly as possible. At the moment I am not in a position to confirm, deny, or comment on the allegations to which the Hon. Member has referred. I can tell him that I have instructed my officials to ascertain the facts and report to me as quickly as possible. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will be in touch with him as soon as I have that information.
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


DEPUTY MINISTER'S REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue which follows up on the question of the Hon. Member for Cambridge. Will the Minister inform the House whether his Deputy Minister, under any circumstances, reports in any fashion on any matters whatsoever through either the Prime Minister's Office or the PCO?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader ought to know that the Deputy Minister reports to his Minister.


Erik Nielsen: I take it that the assurance he is giving the House is that the answer to my question is no.


PRIZES FOR AUDITORS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the $50 lunches a head per auditor that are set as the prizes for harassing taxpayers, can the Minister inform the House what the prize is if they nail a taxpayer and put him in jail? Is it a $500 dinner complete with entertainment? What is the prize for putting a taxpayer in jail?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is so ridiculous it does not deserve an answer.


FINANCE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance on behalf of taxpayers who do not earn enough income to pay taxes. My question pertains to the half billion dollar blank cheque he has given to the oil companies in the form of windfall tax relief. PGRT legislation is currently before the House which would give in the order of a one-quarter million dollar return. In the Minister's Budget we are also considering the IORT suspension again which this year is $190 million.
A few minutes ago the Minister said that a person would have to be a charlatan to say that something could be done to help the unemployed. When are we going to stop giving unconditional tax breaks to oil companies when there is no guarantee they will be passed through to consumers or that they will go into investments in Canada, and when the major multinational oil companies are the major beneficiaries and could just as well pass it through as dividends to their parent corporations, or invest it in the South China Sea? In short,
1558

February 20, 1984
Petitions
when is the Minister going to start looking in the mirror and see that there are fair ways of dealing with people who need help in this economy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should realize that we are trying to allocate funds, either in the form of direct support by the Government or as incentives to the private sector to create as many jobs as quickly as we can. Coming from the West as he does, I do not think my friend will conclude that closing down the oil and gas industry in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan is going to be of great support to the unemployed of the country. I would suggest to him that if we have an active and dynamic oil and gas industry it will have significant beneficial impact, not only in terms of job creation in the West but all over Canada. I am sure my friend, if he reflects upon it, will find that this is the case.


REQUEST THAT CONDITIONS BE ATTACHED TO TAX BREAKS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, oil company profits went up 38 per cent this year to $1.2 billion. The Minister wants to give them another half billion dollars in order to improve their cash flow. Their cash flow went up 16 per cent to $3.8 billion in the first half of 1983.
The disgusting aspect of this is not that we are shutting it down; we are simply asking that he stop writing blank cheques and begin providing some conditions to any forfeiture to tax revenue, that they either be passed through to consumers or they make an investment in the area that will stimulate the economy, guarantee energy security, and provide some jobs for people in this country.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the industry does not invest and does not spend, it will have higher profits and it will pay taxes. Those taxes will come back to the federal Government and provincial Governments. Those moneys will be used to help Canadian citizens all across the country, and particularly help the unemployed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. Cosgrove) on Friday, February 17, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) on Friday, February 17, 1984, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



AGRICULTURE


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Sala-berry (Mr. Laniel) perhaps unconsciously misled the House in his earlier submission. He indicated that apples grown in Ontario and Quebec are the best apples in Canada but that can only be true if British Columbia and the Okanagan are no longer in Canada. By last count they are still part of Canada. We all know that they have the best apples in the world.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on February 15.
Any attempt to intimidate a Member with a view to influencing his parliamentary conduct is a breach of privilege. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. If a Member is subjected to threats and intimidation, he or she is clearly hindered in the fulfilment of the parliamentary duties for which he or she was elected.
The Hon. Member for Yukon in his lengthy presentation covered a great deal of ground in relation to this principle. One statement which he made at page 1418 of Hansard, with which the Chair fully agrees, was as follows:
For a breach of privilege to be established, it must be established that the Government attempted to intimidate or obstruct the Leader of the Opposition by threatening to release information about his conduct in his role as a private citizen.
He then went on to say, that "intimidation was the Government's intention". However, this statement reflects the Hon. Member's own judgment and he presumably does not claim it as a proven fact. The Chair has to decide, on the basis of the facts presented, whether there is enough evidence to substantiate a prima facie basis to this assertion.
The presentation of the Hon. Member for Yukon creates certain difficulties for the Chair. On the one hand, he is raising a question of privilege on behalf of his colleague, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). However, in elaborating the case, the Hon. Member for Yukon seemed to be complaining that all members of the Opposition were working under the shadow of threats and intimidation. He alleged that "Members of the House can no longer rise in the House to ask questions of the Ministry without fear of reprisals for their actions". He referred to incidents not directly related to the question of privilege he was raising, such as an incident arising on January 24 involving the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). He claimed that the question of privilege arose out of the exchanges during the Question Period, although the presentation ranged beyond the principal issue which was raised during the Question Period, namely the
February 20, 1984

collection of information concerning the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. A great deal of preparation had clearly gone into the Hon. Member's submission.
The Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) stated during his intervention that there was no dispute about the facts. What was in question was the interpretation. I believe that this accurately sums up the situation. The Chair must consider the facts which are before it.
What we do know for certain is that among the files maintained in the Prime Minister's Office is one concerning the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. We know that certain employees of the Prime Minister's Office have collected information concerning the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition which is in the public domain. This information, as far as can be determined, is freely available to anybody prepared to go to the trouble and expense of seeking it. There is no evidence that the file on the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition contains anything other than press clippings and other information available to the public. There is no evidence that anything on the file was illegally obtained or that it was the kind of information to which public access would be restricted.
Another fact before us is a newspaper article published in The Globe and Mail on February 15 which made certain allegations which can be summed up in the opening paragraph:
The Prime Minister's Office employed two people at taxpayers' expense for covert intelligence gathering aimed at finding embarrassing information on the business background of Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney.
A number of questions were based upon this article and the allegations were unequivocally denied by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) when answering those questions. Because of the seriousness of this matter I think I should quote from some of these answers.
In answer to a question by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) alleging that a covert operation had been mounted by officials of the Prime Minister's Office, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister said as reported at page 1408 of Hansard:
That is quite untrue, and quite false. There was no such covert intelligence operation conducted by the Prime Minister's Office into the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition and into his background before he entered public life. There was no such covert operation, and I deny it completely.
In answer to a question by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister said at page 1409 of Hansard:
There was no investigation into the personal conduct, nor would 1 condone if it were ever brought to my attention any such investigation into the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition.
Answering a question from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), he said at page 1410 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, on the first point I want to assure the Leader of the NDP that this particular research exercise had nothing to do with the private life of the Leader of the Opposition.
In answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Rose-dale, he said at page 1411 of Hansard:
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I would condemn as being totally without justification any such investigation by the Government into the private life of
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
any Member of Parliament. That is for the police if they want to do it, but not
for us.
And finally, in answer to the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), he stated at page 1413 of Hansard:
There is no investigation whatsoever into the personal lives of Members of Parliament.
We therefore have a situation where a newspaper has made certain allegations and a member of the Government has categorically denied them. This is hardly the basis for a question of privilege. We are bound to take the word of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister that there is no foundation to the allegations made.
I would refer the House to Citation 19(1) in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Finally, I would emphasize the the essence of a breach of privilege of the kind alleged by the Hon. Member for Yukon lies in the obstruction or hindrance suffered by a Member of Parliament in the fulfilment of his duties. There has been no evidence of any such impediment in any of the exchanges which have taken place in this House. Members have freely made statements, asked questions, expressed their views and attacked the Government without any inhibitions. As I said in the course of an earlier ruling, we have seen Parliament in the full exercise of its privileges.
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Chair is unable to find that a prima facie case of privilege has been established.


MR. COOPER-ALLEGED INTIMIDATION BY CANADA POST OFFICIAL-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) on February 6. Before doing so, may I appeal to all Hon. Members, when giving notice of a question of privilege, to assist the Chair by indicating in the notice the nature of the complaint they wish to raise.
I should first like to state a general principle which is a key factor in this case. There is no question that any attempt to threaten, intimidate or bribe a Member with a view to influencing his or her conduct in the House or in one of its committees is a breach of privilege. This is so fundamental that it hardly seems necessary to quote from the authorities. However, in support of this principle I would refer to pages 156 to 158 of Erskine May's Twentieth Edition and to Citations 67 and 74 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
The Hon. Member in his submission stated that an official of Canada Post Corporation telephoned his office and, in a conversation with a member of his staff, attempted to influence his actions in the House of Commons by way of threats and insults. Specifically the Hon. Member asserted that the official threatened to withhold co-operation concerning the operations of the Corporation unless questions to be asked in the House concerning the Corporation were first cleared with

February 20, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
the President's office. As reported at page 1103 of Hansard, the Hon. Member said, inter alia:
I was very definitely offered an advantage if I behaved in a manner acceptable to Canada Post and conversely threatened with a disadvantage if my office failed to co-operate.
A threat emanating from any government department or public corporation to withhold information or co-operation from a Member of Parliament would undoubtedly hinder that Member in the fulfilment of his or her parliamentary duties and therefore constitute a breach of privilege. By the same token, an offer of favourable treatment on condition that questions are first cleared with the office concerned would also violate privilege in an equally fundamental way.
The Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) undertook to investigate the incident and on February 9 reported to the House that there was no foundation to the allegations of the Hon. Member for Peace River. He asserted that the Hon. Member's complaint was based on hearsay and stated:
I have personally been in communication with this officer and have been assured that at no time during the conversation were any threats made which could have conceivably inhibited the Hon. Member from performing his role as a spokesman of the Official Opposition or which could deny co-operation from Canada Post.
On February 14 the Hon. Member for Peace River, replying to the statement made by the Hon. Minister of Labour on February 9, reiterated the facts as he had stated them on February 6. We are therefore faced with a conflict of opinion as to what actually happened.
Before dealing further with this conflict as to facts, I should like to deal with the hearsay aspect of this question. On September 4, 1973, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) complained that police officers had entered her office in her absence and interrogated her staff without her permission. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands was not in her office at the time, yet the Chair found that a prima facie case of privilege existed and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The committee concluded in its report of September 21, 1973 that the question of privilege was well founded. It is therefore the view of the Chair that an action which amounts to a form of intimidation does not need to be directed at the Member in person in order to constitute an offence in terms of privilege. As the Hon. Member pointed out in his submission, and as stated at page 158 of Erskine May's Twentieth Edition:
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
We all know that the word of an Hon. Member may not be questioned. Therefore, the Chair accepts that both the Hon. Member for Peace River and the Hon. Minister of Labour are stating the facts as they honestly believe them to be. As the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) quite rightly pointed out, it is not for the Chair to pronounce on which of the versions as to what occurred is the correct one. However, in a
case where an Hon. Member claims that his ability to function is being undermined, the Chair must take full account of the evidence presented, in this case the categorical assurance of the Hon. Member for Peace River that the events took place as he related them. The circumstances leave the Chair with no choice but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established so that the House can determine whether or not the matter should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation. The Committee would have the opportunity of examining all parties involved in this matter and reporting its findings to the House.
I suggest that this is the only course which would enable the House to determine exactly what happened. I therefore call on the Hon. Member for Peace River to move his motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, first may I thank you for your ruling.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the matters raised as a question of privilege on February 6, 1984 by the Hon. Member for Peace River and the responses made thereto by the Minister of Labour on February 9, 1984 be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and that the committee submit its report not later than June 25, 1984.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has reservations about the condition concerning the time when a report is to be made. The Chair has a motion before it. The Chair has no difficulty accepting the motion, but the condition attached to it to the effect that the Committee submit its report not later than June 25 does raise a question in the mind of the Chair. If the Hon. Member will delete that portion of the motion, the Chair will find it in order.


Albert Glen Cooper: I am prepared to delete that, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the reservations the Chair has. Perhaps the reference to the date of limitation could be deleted, leaving the requirement to report.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, the Hon. Member is free to move the motion he wants. We are free to support it or not. If he wants to withdraw what he has moved, he needs unanimous consent, with respect, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I would like to know whether it is in order to move in a motion that there is a limit for debate of a report. That I would like to know. Maybe you would want to take this matter under advisement and report tomorrow. If not, Mr. Speaker, we will have no other choice but to vote against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has not accepted the motion as presented. Therefore, the Hon. Member does not have anything to withdraw. The Chair did not accept the motion in the form in which it was presented. The Chair invited the Hon. Member to present a motion. The form in which it was presented originally was not acceptable to the Chair. Now the Hon. Member is presenting a motion in a form that will be
February 20, 1984

acceptable by a change of wording. The motion will now be as
follows:
That the matters raised as a question of privilege on February 5, 1984 by the Hon. Member for Peace River and the responses made thereto by the Minister of Labour on February 9, 1984 be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for report.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
Messrs.
Munro	Riis	Speyer(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Robinson	StevensMurphy	(Burnaby)	StewartNeil	Roche	TaylorNickerson	St. Germain	ThackerNielsen	Sargeant	ThomsonOberle	Schellenberger	TowersOgle	Scott	VankoughnetOrlikow	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WenmanPaproski	Siddon	WilsonPatterson	Skelly	WrightReid	Young-95.
(St. Catharines)


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.14 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.14 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 21, 1984