1984-06-19

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 18, consideration of Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motions Nos. 10, 16, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 35 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the motion to delete Clause 3 from Bill C-9. Clause 3, Mr. Speaker, is the proposed Section setting out the establishment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I have indicated in earlier remarks that I accept the fact that Canada, like every other country, needs a security service. It needs a security service which will protect the interests of Canada. I am not very concerned whether that security service should be a civilian security service or a part of the RCMP.
I recognize the fact that, for many years, and even today, the RCMP had and has an excellent reputation. It has earned the respect of most Canadians. Therefore I am not too worried about the question of where the new security service should be lodged, either as a civilian service or as part of the RCMP. What I am concerned about is that its mandate should be crystal clear. It should know what its job is, and what its responsibilities are. It should know what it can do and what it cannot do in order to fulfil its mandate.
[DOT]	(mo)
For many years most people in Canada knew very little about the work of the security service. There were people in trade union movements, universities, student and church organizations who had a feeling that the security service was keeping an eye on them, infiltrating their organizations, even though they believed that the things that they were doing were quite legitimate and did not need to be spied upon. But they
had no real evidence that this was happening until a few years ago.
I was a Member of this House when stories began to circulate about some of the activities in which the security service had been involved. I remember that, as each story came out, the then Solicitor General, first the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), and later the present Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), assured Members of this House, the media, and the general public that these were isolated cases. Well, either they had not been told what was going on or they did not want to know. The McDonald Commission looked into all these questions, and in fact they did not know what was going on.
Eventually we had the prosecution of a former RCMP officer, Mr. Samson, which, along with other things, led to the establishment of the McDonald Commission. It spent several years, heard hundreds of witnesses in public and in secret, and made a report which ought to have caused a great deal of hard thinking and anguish on the part of all Canadians. The situation was in fact very, very serious. The report said that the security service had been involved in the theft of membership lists of a legitimate political Party, involved in burning barns, and in the theft of dynamite, and wire tapping. Those are just a few of the activities in which the Security Service had been involved.
Eventually the McDonald Commission made a number of recommendations calling for legislation to set up a new security service to make clear what its job and responsibilities were, what its officers could and could not do, and what they should be able to do in order to fulfil their mandate. We have had at least two Bills from the Government supposedly dealing with the problems, and making proposals on how to deal with the recommendations. The first Bill died because there was so much opposition to it. It was clear that the Bill and the proposals were deficient.
[DOT] (U15)
Now we have this second Bill which was referred to the Senate and had a number of changes made to it, based on the recommendations of the Senate. The Minister has said repeatedly that it is only a small group of malcontents who are opposing that Bill for political reasons, or because they do not understand it. But the Bill is still being opposed by very important non partisan groups in the community. I will list them very briefly. They are the Canadian Conference of Churches, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the provincial Attorneys General, and organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress. Such organizations appeared before the committee and made very detailed critiques of the

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Bill, which included a number of very specific recommendations on how the Bill should be amended to meet the standards of fairness which are required. Virtually all of their recommendations have been ignored.
I remind Members of the House that the Canadian Jewish Congress was very active in an earlier major debate which we had in Parliament on the question of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. Its presentation was made at that time by its then president, Professor Irwin Cotier, a professor of law at McGill University. He is a leading spokesman on human and civil rights, and is legal counsel to Anatoly Shcharansky, the famous Soviet dissident.
Mr. Cotier was an assistant to the new Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Turner, when Mr. Turner was the Minister of Justice. A long article in yesterday's Globe and Mail said that Professor Cotier was one of the people Mr. Turner recruited when he became the Minister of Justice. Mr. Turner wanted small 1 liberals, progressive thinking people who were interested in questions such as civil rights. Professor Cotier was one of Mr. Turner's assistants. The article in the Globe and Mail reads:
Prof. Cotier says at first he mistrusted his boss, figuring that he was not serious about the issues, such as civil liberties or poverty, he said he wanted to address.
Mr. Cotier says his mind was changed when he watched Mr. Turner deliver a hard-hitting speech calling for justice to the poor-
I wonder what Mr. Cotier would think about the Bill we are discussing now. I wonder what the new Leader of the Liberal Party would think about this Bill. Mr. Cotier has not spoken on this Bill, but the organization of which he was the president until about a year ago, has spoken.
I will quote a few of the recommendations of the Canadian Jewish Congress which the Solicitor General has ignored completely. Dealing with threats to the security of Canada they proposed the following amendment to what is now in the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair regrets interrupting the Hon. Member, but his time is up. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who preceded me was asking rhetorically what Mr. Turner or Mr. Cotier, the eminent lawyer on civil rights, would think of this Bill. What does it matter? It does not matter what Mr. Turner thinks. There is nothing new about Mr. Turner. It is not a new deal, it is the old deal writ large.
Mr. Turner is now the leader of the Liberal Party. We saw the unseemly haste with which all the sycophantic members of the Trudeau Cabinet jumped on his bandwagon early in the game, because they knew that the fix was in. The establishment was going to put him in office.
When the Hon. Member asks what would Mr. Turner think, I say that it does not matter what Mr. Turner thinks. What
matters is is whether the public would buy a used Government from that man.
Alan Borovoy is not a kook, lunatic, or nut; he is one of the most sensible and intelligent critics on the question of civil liberties in Canada. He has said that this Bill in its present form is the most dangerous attack on civil liberties since Confederation.
When one talks of Mr. Turner, and reform, and the new Liberal Party, it is all a lot of garbage. The first thing that happened in this House after Mr. Turner became the Leader of the Liberal Party was the implementation of notice of closure on a Bill that is absolutely essential and integral to the civil rights of Canadians. What we listened to last weekend was absolute claptrap. There is nothing new. It is not the new deal. I said, it is the old deal, writ large.
The disgrace about this Bill is that the Government said at second reading stage that we could make suggestions at committee. That was a fraud. It was dishonest and was not intended. The Government has not made a significant acceptance of suggestions made by Hon. Members in committee or by those who came to the committee at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer.
All that we are listening to on the Government side is sanctimonious nonsense. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is reported in today's Canadian Press as saying that this is all a filibuster, and even a child could understand that Hon. Members are just playing games. Are we playing games with Clause 2, subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) which define what are threats to the security of Canada, and trigger what a secret group can do secretly, in the dark, to other Canadians?
Some day someone will ask why some of us MPs did not say something. The fact of the matter is that we have been saying a lot, but because the media have been running around writing inane stories about an inane bunch of people, nobody has been reporting what we have been saying. One of these days the same reporters, the same graduates of the same crummy journalism schools, will be writing sanctimonious, pious editorials asking how did all of this happen in the House of Commons of Canada. When that happens, I hope some of them have their noses rubbed in some of the speeches that have been made here.
I am fed up to the teeth with the hypocritical claptrap of the Liberal Members. We are not even allowed to put most of the amendments in the House that would force them to vote. Even the Liberal Party's former Solicitor General does not agree with this Bill. They will not even listen to him. He is the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand). Unfortunately he is away, and I had to move his amendments yesterday. He was probably sent away.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who is an eminent Member of the House and has been here for many years, asks the rhetorical question: what would John Turner think of this Bill? John Turner knows all about the Bill and has thought about it. He said to get it out of the House as fast as possible because he does not want to be embarrassed by
June 19, 1984

it. Therefore yesterday the Solicitor General, who has been wandering around with a John Turner button on his lapel for weeks, if not months, said that he will move notice to cut off debate. I would not mind their cutting off debate if they would accept some amendments that would make this Bill safer for Canadians.
I practised law in courts for 17 years before I was elected in 1972. I worked in a logging camp and lived in a bunkhouse when I was 15. I do not come from a silver spoon background, and I have been about. I got out of law school and I went to the Yukon, and paid my debts by running a string of pack-horses. I have served in the Canadian army. There is not much I haven't done or haven't seen.
I do not come to this debate with some kind of ingenuous, rosy hued notion and fantasy out of the classroom. Of course I am a civil rights lawyer. Any lawyer who knows the common law has to be a civil rights lawyer. Common law is our pride and our tradition, because lawyers who went to court had the guts to get up and say some of the things that were not the conventional clap-trap wisdom and herd mentality of either the media or the cocktail party set. That is what this debate is about, Mr. Speaker.
The Government could accept some amendments to this Bill if it had any conscience or any sense. But the Government has dug in. The Liberals have been told by a group of so-called experts that that is what they have to have. The other people who come representing traditions and values that determine and guarantee our freedom have not been listened to. Those of us who talk about civil rights are looked upon by the Government as some kind of left-wing kook fringe.
I am ashamed at what is happening in this House. I am ashamed also that across the country the people who are supposed to be watching this debate, and supposed to be finding out what the issue really is, cannot seem to figure it out. I do not know what we have journalism schools for. What about the people in the ivory towers of the media who prate, rant, and preach, and tell us, MPs, how we ought to behave every once in a while, give us lectures about the price of food in the parliamentary restaurant, tell us that we should never have an increase in pay, or get so righteous? While all of this has been going on, where have they been? Sitting in their ivory towers, in their executive suites, while their underpaid minions have been dazzled by a party show that has gone on in the last few weeks. As a consequence this vital issue, as Alan Borovoy said, the most important issue in civil rights since Confederation, has been ignored.
I am ashamed for this place, and I am ashamed of the Government.


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


Mr. Kaplan:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair would like to remind the House that Motions Nos. 10, 16, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 35 have been grouped for debate.
A vote on Motion No. 10 disposes of Motions Nos. 16, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 35.
The question is on Motion No. 10. Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Althouse, moves that Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the Motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79 (11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The Chair would like to remind Hon. Members that Motions Nos. 12, 13, and 14 have been grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 disposes of Motions Nos. 13 and 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 12 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 13. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 disposes of a vote on Motion No. 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 14.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved:: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 4.


John Allen Fraser: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 22 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"appoint the Director of the Service, who, subject to subsection 6(1), has the operational responsibility for the Service."


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 22 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"appoint the Director of the Service, after consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons of each party having at least 12 Members in that House."

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: For debate, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this group of amendments is to deal with the question of the appointment of the Director of the proposed civilian security service. A number of questions were raised in that connection, including the proposed term of office of the Director, as well as the consultation which should be mandatory on the appointment of such an important individual and the powers which the Director of the service will hold.
I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) with respect to the previous motion. I only wish that his fire and brimstone had been applied equally vigorously in committee. This legislation might not have seen the light of day in its present form had his colleagues in caucus been a little more vigorous in their opposition to this legislation instead of co-operating with the Government in expediting its passage.
The first motion is Motion No. 12 which would delete Clause 4. However, I should like to talk for a moment or two about Motion No. 14 in particular. That motion would require that the Minister appoint the Director of the service only following consultation by the Prime Minister with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, as well as with the Leader of each Party having at least 12 Members in the House. This was one of the essential recommendations of the McDonald Commission, that in the appointment of such an important official whose powers are so sweeping under the terms of the legislation, there should at least be consultation if not a requirement for ratification of that appointment. Indeed, I believe a requirement for ratification would be preferable, but at least there should be consultation before appointment to such an important position.
What is the history on this question? Shortly after the report of the McDonald Commission was tabled, the Government announced that it intended to create a new civilian security service. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) went on to name the man he decided was to head the service. At that point it was Mr. Fred Gibson. There was no consultation whatsoever with either of the Opposition Parties, the Government having ignored that recommendation. Some time later Mr. Gibson was appointed to the position of Deputy Minister and yet another individual was named to be Director of the new civilian security service whenever it was created, Mr. Ted Finn from the Privy Council Office, a former crony of Michael Pitfield. There was no consultation whatsoever with the Opposition on the appointment of Mr. Finn, the new Director, despite the very clear direction on the part of the McDonald Commission that there should be consultation with the Opposition before the appointment of such an individual. The purpose of Motion No. 14 is simply to include in the Bill the requirement for that consultation. I cannot imagine how the Government could oppose such a reasonable suggestion.
I am sure we will hear from the Hon. Member for Vancouver South with respect to Motion No. 13 since that motion was moved in his name. However, with respect to Motion No. 12,
the motion to delete Clause 4,1 would note that it is one which deals with the question of the Director of the service and the powers of this new service. Those powers which will be granted to the new Director are sweeping and unprecedented in any democratic society. For the first time in Canadian history the Director of the new service will have the power to go before a court and seek a warrant to break into anyone's home, to remove anything-this is what some have called legalized theft-to break into an office or any other place, to instal bugs and to take away anything it wants to take away. In effect, we are seeing here the legalizing of what was documented as illegal by the McDonald Commission. If the security service breaks into the offices of the APLQ and steals documents, under this Bill that is now legal. If the security service breaks into the offices of the Parti Quebecois, a legal party, and steals computer tapes with its membership records-and the McDonald Commission said that that was illegal-under the provisions of the Bill that is now legal.
The McDonald Commission documented a series of breaches of federal and provincial law. In virtually every instance the response of the Government has been to change the law to make what was illegal then legal now. Surely in a democratic society that cannot be acceptable.
The Director appointed under the provisions of Clause 4 will have the power to appear before a Federal Court judge and seek a judicial warrant, after having consulted with the Minister, to break into any place, to remove any thing or to open first-class mail. That power has never before been granted for any purpose to any police agency in the history of the country. The Government comes before Parliament and says that it is a power which it needs, despite the fact that the McDonald Commission clearly argued against extending the power to open first-class mail of Canadians suspected of so-called domestic subversion. The Director can seek the power to open the first-class mail of all Canadians. The Director can go before the courts and seek a warrant to invade the confidential medical records and confidential psychiatric records of Canadians, a power which is not in existence at the present time.
For the first time in the history of our country, the Director of the service will be able to go before the courts of this land and seek a warrant to access confidential income tax records which, once again, have never in the history of this country been made legally accessible to any police force or security service. The McDonald Commission documented the fact that the security service illegally had access to income tax records. The response of this Government is that while it may have been illegal then, we are telling Parliament that we are going to make it legal today. That is the power that is contained in this Bill and which is conferred on the Director under Clause 4. It is for that reason that we are seeking the deletion of Clause 4. Nowhere, in no other western other country in the world, whether it be the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Australia, are the kinds of powers being sought in this legislation conferred.
June 19, 1984

What is so special about the threats to Canada? I suggest these motions should be supported. These draconian powers which are granted to this new super spy must be curtailed. On that basis, I urge the House to adopt Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 which deal with Clause 4 of the Bill. In the original statute this clause was different. After having heard the witnesses, the Government agreed that it would accept an amendment. It prompts the comment that on many occasions the Government was prepared to accept the evidence of the Senate committee, the McDonald Commission and our own committee, yet in other clauses that were equally reasonable and upon which Government Members themselves could see the logic of the change, Cabinet has decided not to accept it. I think it is fair comment that if the thinking of the McDonald Commission was proper on several of these issues, surely it is just as proper on other issues. I do not understand why the Cabinet accepted some and not others. Likewise the Senate. I would like the Minister to comment on that. It is not this clause in particular but some of the others as well. I would like him to think about it. Maybe he could give us the benefit of his thinking as to what occurred within Cabinet that some of the McDonald Commission recommendations were accepted and some were not, in terms of judicial warrants and so on.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why do you accept some and reject some?


Blaine Allen Thacker: My acceptances and rejections are based on evidence that we heard in committee.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: So are ours.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We have a disagreement then as to the weight that should be attached to the evidence we heard. The Minister will agree that some of his own Members felt in their questioning of the Minister that a change would be acceptable if the Minister did not. Is that because he and the Cabinet have vastly superior access to information, even though they did not hear the witnesses? This is a general comment I have about the whole process which has broken down in Parliament.
We have second reading of the Bill. In a sense, second reading is premature. It is only after you hear the witnesses that you get the broad scope of the Bill. I agree with those who believe that after the Bill is introduced for first reading it should go directly to committee. We could then hear the experts from the various fields. The committee could then recommend changes. At that point the Bill could come back at second reading and be discussed on principle. It would be easier for the Government to accept amendments at that stage, before we have second reading debate and it has been passed in principle. The Government at second reading of this Bill stood and defended the principle of it. It then went to committee. When faced with the many changes suggested by the experts, the Government will not accept them. The Government and its caucus are convinced that the Bill has been approved in principle and therefore cannot accept any changes.
Security Intelligence Service
Clause 4 dealing with the Director originally stated that the Director shall be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding five years. We immediately picked up on the fact that the Director could not be dismissed by the Government if the Director did something politically improper or improper for reasons other than conduct. We therefore proposed the motion that the Director hold office at pleasure. That makes him much more accountable and responsive to the government of the day. That was a good amendment and I commend the Minister for accepting it. I wish he would accept some of our other amendments at the same time.
The Director at the expiration of his first term of five years can be reappointed for a further five years and no person shall hold office as Director for terms exceeding ten years in the aggregate. That is good. We should learn from the United States situation when Mr. Edgar Hoover was director of the CIA. He was in office so long that he collected dossiers on all people in public life. He was able to block appointments of people to public office, promotion of officials within the hierarchy of the United States administration and actually perverted the political scene in the United States because of the power he had built up in the office. We do not want that to happen. I am glad that the Director, as good as he or she may be, will have to leave at the end of ten years. If I had my way, that same rule would apply with respect to the Prime Minister, the Premiers and indeed to all of us in public life. After ten years such a person would have to drop out for at least one term.
There is no doubt that the Hill is an unreal place. There is the very real possibility of losing touch with what those at the grassroots feel about issues. We would be much more responsive if we had to stand down for a term after ten years in office.
Motion No. 12, which is an attempt by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to have the whole clause struck out, is pursuant to his strategy that if he cannot have his changes, the whole Bill should be knocked out. I disagree heartily with his comments vis-a-vis the comments of my colleague from Vancouver South who presented his case in committee in a rational and logical way. If it would not have been for the Hon. Member for Burnaby, I feel the Government would have been more inclined to accept amendments. I think the strategy and tactics of the Hon. Member for Burnaby in committee so early on inflamed the Government and it took extraordinary remedies. The actions of the Hon. Member for Burnaby have been deleterious to the parliamentary process in dealing with this Bill. I know from talking with some of my colleagues on the Government side privately and off the record that they may have been inclined to accept more of these amendments had it not been for the actions of the NDP and the Hon. Member for Burnaby.
As I look at the further sections of the Bill dealing with the Director, I note that the Director has absolutely enormous

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
powers regarding the appointment and management of the employees of the service. The relevant clause states:
The Director ... has the control and management of the Service and all matters connected therewith.
The clause dealing with appointments relates back to Clause 4. Clause 8 reads:
Notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act, the Director has exclusive authority to appoint employees-
That is a very broad power. This Director is being given an enormous power over his own employees. If this Director were to have unlimited tenure, that power could very easily be used against the employees of the service.
I have one more minute left, Mr. Speaker. That is a part of my argument regarding why there should be a limit of ten years on the tenure of the Director. He has exclusive authority to appoint employees and, in relation to the personnel management of employees, to provide for terms and conditions of their employment. That is a very dramatic power and I think we would not want to have anyone with that kind of power hold an office for more than ten years.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am supporting the amendments that have been put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and particularly the motion to amend the clause that requires consultation with leaders of other Parties. In a case like this, it is of absolute importance that there be no veto power by other political Parties. That would be wrong and unwise.
The Bill gives this agency wide and sweeping powers. It gives it powers far in excess of those suggested by the McDonald Commission and far in excess of and much more sweeping than those suggested by virtually every major group that appeared before the committee. Therefore, there should at least be some consultation between the leaders of the Parties in this House of Commons, Parties which have received a substantial degree of support from the Canadian electorate.
I believe that the people of Canada have a right to the knowledge that the director of any agency that has the right by law to interfere in many aspects of Canadian life that have hitherto been considered well protected if not inviolate has been subject to a Parliamentary review. They have the right to the knowledge that the experience and character of such a person has been subject to a review by those people Canadians have chosen to represent their various legitimate interests in the House of Commons. I am not suggesting that the Government is not acting with the best intentions. We all have our own various ways of achieving what we think is good for society. However, I cannot understand why the Government and the Minister would have an objection to this kind of consultative process.
It has often been said that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Nowhere must it be seen to be done more than in the choosing of a director and the setting up of an administration that is responsible for the very broad and sweeping powers for which this legislation provides. Even at
this late date I would hope that the Minister, if he will not support the motion put forward by my colleague, will at least consider consulting with his other colleagues and perhaps returning to the House with Government amendments which would provide that what is seen to be done when setting up the administration of this service is beyond reproach and that every step is taken to ensure the consideration of all valid and legitimate expressions of political opinion in Canada. This is the very least that should be done when setting up an agency which has a mandate, as I have said many times before, that gives it very wide and sweeping powers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to see members of the Government Party returning to the House to hear what I have to say about this particular legislation.


David Orlikow: Because you're so good.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, I say this in all modesty. Any circumstance which would cause Liberal Members of Parliament to listen to those expressing their points of view is really an unusual circumstance. I am grateful for small mercies. Government Members have been silent on this bill. We have not had an opportunity to hear Members of Parliament representing the Liberal ranks defend, as I assume they should, the positions that have been taken by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).
We can only assume that the Solicitor General has now had an opportunity of clearing his positions with the new leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. John Turner. We know that the Solicitor General was one of the key workers for and advisers to Mr. Turner. I therefore must assume that this legislation and the tactics that are being employed with respect to the closure the Government has imposed on this legislation and its provisions have the full sanction and support of the new leader of the Liberal Party.
We are dealing now with provisions which affect the whole question of what kind of protection should be afforded to the civil liberties of Canadians generally. One of the things that has bothered me is that this legislation raises some serious questions about the protection of Canadians from unauthorized snooping and spying by an agency of the Government, the function of which is the collecting of files on individuals and the compiling of portfolios on people in Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair would like to remind the Hon. Member that we are dealing with report stage of the Bill and we are presently
June 19, 1984

considering the grouping of Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 which deal specifically with Clause No. 4 of the Bill pertaining to the appointment of the Director. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to direct his remarks to that particular clause.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the point of these amendments which are before us is either to amend the position of the Director of this service that is proposed by this legislation or indeed to remove the provisions respecting the appointment of a Director. It seems to me that that is one way of manifesting our objection to the way in which the Government has dealt with this legislation. There has been a lack of sensitivity to the suggestions that we have made about the accountability of people who will be involved in this service and particularly about the person who will be primarily involved in the operation of the new security service, the Director. This person will play a pivotal role in carrying out the functions of the new security agency. Therefore, naturally we are concerned about what precisely will be the parameters of the powers of the Director.
Are we getting ourselves into the same situation which was subject to much criticism with respect to the operations and the arbitrary nature-according to all press reports-of the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, in the United States? We know through freedom of information sources in the United States about certain things which transpired because of the fact that the director of the FBI had limited accountability. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation deemed it appropriate to obtain the goods on certain people within the United States for purposes which he felt were justified. However, in the cold light of historic perspective, they turned out to be very much self-serving endeavours on the part of the director of that agency. We must guard against the availability of unlimited discretionary powers for the director of any agency in this country.
This agency will not be involved in the prosecution of criminals. It will not be involved directly in law enforcement as such. It is an agency which collects and deciphers information on people and on organizations. Its sole purpose is to garner information with respect to activities going on within Canada and outside of Canada. The question may be asked: If they are not in a position, as a police force is, to prosecute or lay informations, what difference does it make whether they collect information with respect to the citizens of Canada? There is a well-known axiom that knowledge is power. If certain groups in a free and democratic society have the function of advising government in terms of security matters and are able to develop files on individuals across Canada, and this information is made known without accountability to political sources within our country, the information has the possibility, indeed the probability, of being used for political purposes to the detriment of people in Canada.
I do not want to rehash old news, but I am still scandalized by the actions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) at the time of the election of our new Leader, the Hon. Member for
Security Intelligence Service
Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney). The Minister of Finance instructed officials in his Department to go through files and to seek out information which might cause embarrassment to the Leader of the Opposition. People say that this could not happen in Canada. However, the Minister of Finance was forced to stand in his place and admit that that was precisely what happened.
Knowledge is power. The danger with this organization is that if it is able to obtain information with respect to individuals in our country through surveillance, authorized wire taps, investigation of income tax returns, investigation of medical records, information which may be embarrassing or damaging to the reputations of individual Canadians, think of the potential that that information could be put to by a government that is inclined to use that information for its own purposes.
When we talk about the appointment of this Director-and these motions precisely deal with that-do we not have the responsibility as a Loyal Opposition to indicate that we have many, many concerns about the accountability and the review process which is generally contained in the legislation? Our many concerns have been expressed and manifested in different ways-through motions, at second reading debate and also within committee-about the mandate which has been given to this agency. We are concerned about the scope, the breadth and the fact that there is a high element of discretion involved with respect to activities which could be carried out by this agency.
In conclusion, are we not entitled to look at the powers and the accountability which the Director of this new service should be given? I am in support of the amendments which are in this particular grouping because I think the Government has, with the weight of its majority, decided to ram this legislation through. It is insensitive to the representations which have been made, insensitive to the feelings of the people of Canada and insensitive to the whole concept of freedom in a democratic society.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider Motions Nos. 17, 19, 22, 23 and 24 which have been grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 17 obviates the need for a vote on Moton No. 19. A negative vote on Motion No. 17 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 19. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 22 will dispose of Motions Nos. 23 and 24. A negative vote on Motion No. 22 necessitates separate votes on Motions Nos. 23 and 24.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 6
(a)	by striking out lines 34 to 36 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the service, and shall issue such written directions on general operational policies of the service including without limiting the generality of the foregoing subsection
(a)	policies with respect to the use of undercover operatives by the service;
(b)	policies with respect to the use of physical surveillance by the service;
(c)	policies with respect to training of employees;
(d)	policies establishing minimization procedures for warrants issued under this Act, and a copy of any such direction shall forthwith after it has been issued be given to the Review Committee.
(b)	by adding immediately after line 40 at page 4, the following:
"(4) The director shall keep the minister fully and currently informed of all operations of the service."
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 23 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"of their employment, provided that, subject to the reasonable factors permitted under the Canadian Human Rights Act, there shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political belief or conviction for which a pardon has been granted, and".
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 8
(a)	by striking out line 23 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor: "of their employment, without denying collective bargaining rights of the said employees, and"
(b)	by striking out line 3 at page 6 and substituting the following:
"(4) The Governor-in-Council shall make".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motions with which we are now dealing relate to two very important clauses of the Bill, Clause No. 6 and Clause No. 8, which essentially set out the functions, duties and responsibilities of the management of the Director of the service as well as the relationship between the Minister responsible, that is, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), and the Director. These clauses as well permit the
Director to establish unilaterally terms and conditions of employment for employees of the new service.
There are four or five motions before the House, Mr. Speaker. These motions deal with a number of subjects because of the way in which the Speaker has chosen to group them. In ten minutes it is very difficult to explain adequately the full purpose of the amendments.
The first grouping of amendments is of those which deal with Clause No. 6, that is, Motion No. 17, which refers to the deletion of Clause No. 6, as well as Clause No. 19 and Clause No. 20. Speaking first, Mr. Speaker, to Motion No. 19, as Clause No. 6 is now worded, the Minister at his or her discretion may issue written directions to the Director of the service and, after those written directions are issued, shall forward a copy to the review committee. Nowhere in this Bill, however, is there any obligation on the part of the Minister to issue such written directions when dealing with important questions of policy. Therefore, the review process, which has already been effectively gutted by the provision in the legislation which would deny access to any documents which are referred to as Cabinet documents, is further weakened by the possibility that the Minister may not in fact pass on written directives to the review committee. The first purpose of this amendment is to require that directives be in writing when dealing with the broad, general operational policies of the service.
As well, Mr. Speaker, this Bill at the present time is totally silent on a number of very important policy questions which I believe must be addressed in the context of the legislation and, more importantly, must be addressed by the Minister and the review committee. These are set out in Motion No. 19. First, Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 19 requires that the Minister establish clear policies with respect to the use of undercover operatives-informers, if you will-by the service.
The placement of an informer can be one of the most intrusive and invasive technique which is available to a security service. It is far more intrusive in a number of instances, Mr. Speaker, and far more chilling in its impact on an organization, than even the placing of a telephone bug or the opening of mail. In a number of instances, as we know all too well, informers have been used not just to collect information, but to attempt to shape the decisions of the groups which they infiltrate. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is totally silent on the question of the role of informers. Indeed, there is not even a requirement that a warrant be obtained, the minimal requirement of a judicial warrant before an informer is placed in an organization by the security service.
The Keable Commission, which was established in the Government of Quebec, very strongly argued that there must be provision for judicial review before the use of undercover spies and informers in a democratic society. Yet, Mr. Speaker, not only is there no requirement for judicial warrant, but this Bill does not even address the issue of informers and the placement of informers.
Once again, we do not have to look very far; we do not have to look beyond the report of the McDonald Commission to see
June 19, 1984

the historic abuse of the placement of informers into groups which broke no laws whatsoever. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, right here in Ottawa Hon. Members will recall that the security service placed an informer, Andrew Moxley, into that subversive group which was attempting to persuade Canada not to test the Cruise missile. As well, informers have been placed into groups which are attempting to support liberation movements in Central America. This Bill, which purports to establish a statutory mandate for the security service, says not a word on this fundamental question.
My amendment would as well, Mr. Speaker, require that policies be established with respect to the use of physical surveillance by the service. Once again, there is no reference to that whatsoever in the Bill as it now stands. My amendment would require policies to be established with respect to the training of employees in order to ensure they are a little more sensitive to civil liberties.
It would, finally, Mr. Speaker, require that policies establishing minimization procedures for warrants issued under this Act be set out, and set out clearly. This Bill goes far beyond comparable American legislation in terms of the nature of warrants and the extent to which warrants can be used. Minimization procedures, Mr. Speaker, would require that if a tap is placed and it subsequently become known that the tap should not have been placed, then it would be removed immediately and any information collected would be destroyed. That minimal safeguard is totally lacking in this legislation.
As well, Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement-this is something which was proposed by many witnesses-that the Director must keep the Minister fully and currently informed of all operations of the service in order to avoid any suggestion of blindness, so that a Minister cannot suggest that he or she did not know what was going on in the service. This would require that the Director be fully and currently informed and thus could not use the excuse of wilful blindness.
As well, Mr. Speaker, there is a reference in this motion to the terms and conditions of employment, and a specific prohibition of discrimination of employment in the service, a discrimination on the grounds which are set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as on the basis of political belief or sexual orientation. Hon. Members will again recall that in appearing before the justice committee, the present Commissioner of the RCMP security service stated that "the security service at this time will not in fact hire individuals who may be gay or lesbian". That was indicated, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that he admitted openly that there was no threat to security whatsoever in the case of individuals who are quite open about their orientation, but he said that other members of the service do not feel comfortable with these people around.
What kind of absurd rationale is that in a democratic society? It is the same rationale, Mr. Speaker, that we heard with respect to blacks and women not so long ago, with respect to Jews and other minorities, that they do not feel comfortable around them. Yet this Minister, Mr. Speaker, stands by and
Security Intelligence Service
permits that kind of discrimination to take place. He should be ashamed of himself, Mr. Speaker, as a member of a minority himself, that that kind of discrimination would be tolerated in this society. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, would ensure that that kind of discrimination would not be permitted in the new civilian security service.
Indeed, the proposed Director, Mr. Finn, has said before the committee that he would not allow such discrimination and this amendment, Mr. Speaker, would ensure, in statutory form, there would be a bar on that discrimination which is not tolerable in today's society or, indeed, in any society.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the amendment would require that the terms and conditions of employment of members of the service not deny them collective bargaining rights. As it stands now, the legislation would deny the fundamental freedom of association-a freedom which is supposedly contained in the Charter of Rights-to members of the new service. This amendment in Motion No. 24 would ensure collective bargaining rights for all members of the service. I want to commend the association of 17 Division of the RCMP for attempting to secure collective bargaining rights for all members of the force. Not the right to strike but the right to bargain collectively on terms and conditions of employment, a right which is denied even possibly to employees of this House.
I want to reiterate that the thrust of the amendments is clearly to establish the responsibility of the Minister to set out policies with respect to the use and placement of informers by the new security service, informers who can have such a chilling impact in a free and democratic society; policies with respect to training and minimization procedures for warrants. Secondly, it would prohibit discrimination in establishing terms and conditions of employment on the grounds set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as on the basis of political belief or sexual orientation. Finally, it would deny the service the right to infringe on freedom of association and full collective bargaining rights. I strongly urge Members of this House to adopt these motions which would strengthen the service and bring the terms and conditions of employment in the service into the 20th century.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Clause 6 of this Bill pursuant to these five motions grouped for debate. Clause 6, dealing with management of the service, states that:
The Director, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Service and all matters connected therewith.
You will see instantly that the issue we have to deal with is whether the Minister is responsible politically for the actions of the Director, or whether he can somehow slip out of the noose, so to speak, if the service does something improper, as the RCMP did back in the 1970s. We had quite a debate in committee as to whether that was so. As I recall, the Minister felt that because the Director is under the direction of the Minister, the Minister would be on the hook for that type of wrongdoing. That may well be so. Clause 6(2) provides that:
4784

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
In providing the direction referred to in subsection (1), the Minister may issue to the Director written directions with respect to the Service and a copy of any such directions shall, forthwith after it is issued, be given to the Review Committee.
My concern as a Member of Parliament is that if this section said the Minister "shall" issue to the Director written instructions which then have to be followed, it would be less easy for the Minister to somehow get out of the ultimate responsibility. All of this instructions would have to be in writing, copies would go to the review committee, and if the service did something outside of those written instructions then the Minister would be quite properly off the hook and the Director would be on the hook. We had quite a debate over whether the Minister "shall" issue directions, and if you review the minutes of the committee the Minister was saying that there are occasions when that is just totally inappropriate because he might be in Timbuktu or something like that and have to give telephone instructions. We accepted the Minister's point on that, but I think we would all agree that we want to have the Director responsible to the Minister, so that if anything goes wrong there is political accountability at the highest level for the actions of the Director.
Clause 6(3) goes on to say that the directions are not statutory instruments. That is in order to maintain secrecy other than through the established review mechanism, the Inspector General and the Review Committee. But it does raise an issue that Hon. Members should think about seriously. This review committee will be appointed by the Governor in Council and they will be Privy Councillors. At first we thought that would mean retired MPs and Senators, because the statute clearly states they cannot be active MPs or Senators. But we found in the evidence of the Minister that no, that was not necessarily the case and they may well pick someone off the street, appoint them Privy Councillor and then put them on the review committee. That completely changes the sense of direction and accountability.
We believe, and the witnesses were clear, that people who have served in public life, in elected office, whether MPs or Senators who at one time served in the House, have a much greater understanding of what Canadians are feeling than someone who might be appointed from a university, the academic community, or some Liberal who has served the Party in a minor role. Therefore, I wish Government Members would take another look at that because I believe we should be closer to the United States situation where the review committee is composed of elected officials.
The U.S. has a much more sophisticated CIA operation. There is a review body of elected officials, one from the Senate and another from the House of Representatives. Why is it that in Canada we distrust having elected officials as a review committee? The U.S. has no trouble with this and they certainly have no more leaks, I suppose, than other countries I believe the Minister should rethink this question.
The witnesses also felt that the Minister should be politically responsible for the CSIC on a day to day basis. That is why we got into this argument about "shall" as opposed to "may".
The Canadian Jewish Congress proposed very extensive amendments to Clause 6(1). For example, they say:
The Director, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Service and all matters connected therewith, but the Director shall comply with directions issued by the Minister under subsection (2) and shall keep the Minister fully informed of the operations of the Service.
They have five other subsections of amendments, none of which was accepted by the Minister. I wish he would stand in the House and tell us why he did not feel disposed to accept the amendments of the Canadian Jewish Congress. They come at the problem with a very special and particular interest. They, more than anyone else, have been oppressed by secret service agencies in other countries, whether it be South America or Eastern Europe. Therefore we felt that their evidence had much more weight than that of myself, say, as a civilian having been born and raised on the western plains. I never have been exposed to any form of oppression, other than by the Grits here in Ottawa responding to central Canada, I suppose. I wish the Minister would stand and tell us why he was not disposed to accept the evidence of the Canadian Jewish Congress on this clause.
We are under time allocation and I wonder if the Minister should not respond on these major clauses particularly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We are not there yet. I will as soon as we are.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Will you respond on Clause 6? I felt the Canadian Jewish Congress had done a very good job. Those are the only comments I have with respect to Clause 6, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
June 19, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.
The House will now consider Motions Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 39 which have been grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 30 disposes of Motions Nos. 31 and 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 30 necessitates separate votes on Motions Nos. 31 and 32. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 33 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 34. A negative vote on Motion No. 33 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 34. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 36 disposes of Motion No. 37. A negative vote on Motion No. 36 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 37. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 38 disposes of Motion No. 39. A negative vote on Motion No. 38 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 39.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-9 be amended with Clause 12.
(a)	by striking out lines 1 to 5 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"12.(1) The service shall collect, analyze and retain to the extent only that is strictly necessary information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable and probable grounds be"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 9 at page 7 the following:
"(2) It shall not be a function of the service to carry out measures to enforce security."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair has some difficulty putting Motion No. 32 since the mover, the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) is not in the House.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I will accept it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair would need unanimous consent for an Hon. Member to move on behalf of someone else. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) to move the motion on behalf of the Member for Vancouver South?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 3 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"strictly necessary for the purpose of protecting the security of Canada, and analyse and retain".


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 22 to 31 at page
7.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 37
Security Intelligence Service
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 46 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"section 13 or advice pursuant to section 14, utilizing only such techniques as are approved by the minister by regulation, such techniques not to include the use of undercover operatives or those for which a warrant is required under section 21 of this Act."
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 16
(a)	by striking out line 8 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor: "capabilities, intentions or activities of any foreign power or agent of a foreign power".
(b)	by striking out lines 19 to 22 at page 8.
(c)	by adding immediately after line 31 at page 8 the following:
"(4) The service shall cease immediately the use of any technique for which a warrant is required under section 21 of this Act when obtaining information pursuant to sub-section 1 when performing its duties and functions under sub-section 1 immediately upon learning that the interception involves a communication involves a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1976 is a party.
(5) The service shall not for the purpose of this or any other section of this Act be authorized to receive information fro the communications security establishment which has been obtained by the interception of communications of Canadian citizens or permanent residents within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1976".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this group of motions deals with Clauses 12, 13, 15 and 16. These are the clauses which effectively establish the mandate of the new security service to deal with the so-called threats to the security of Canada, which we know have been drafted far too broadly, the mandate to provide security assessments, and the new and unprecedented mandate under Clause 16 of this Bill, the so-called foreign intelligence mandate, which would permit the new service to target foreign visitors to Canada who have broken no law whatsoever and pose no threat whatsoever to the security of the country.
In the 10 minutes available to me I will attempt to explain briefly the purpose of each of these amendments. My colleagues will deal more specifically with the threatening and unprecedented powers which are contained in Clause 16 of this Bill, which powers have been severely criticized by many witnesses appearing before our committee.
Motion No. 30 would delete Clause 12 and Motions Nos. 31 and 32 would amend Clause 12, failing deletion. Clause 12 is the clause which gives the service the power to "collect, by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary, and analyze and retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada".
The purpose of this series of motions with respect to Clause 12 of this Bill is to ensure two things. Motion No. 31 would ensure that the service would only retain information which it is strictly necessary, in the pursuit of its mandate, to retain. The present RCMP security service has open files on over 800,000 Canadians. They have some 1.3 million files. Under the wording of this Bill as it is presently construed, it would not be a requirement that unnecessarily open files be closed.

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
This amendment would achieve that. The amendment would include the following:
(2) It shall not be a function of the service to carry out measures to enforce security.
This deals with the question of so-called disruptive measures which were clearly documented by the McDonald Commission, the countering and disruption of lawful political groups. A clause of this nature was strongly recommended for inclusion by the McDonald Commission and is contained in comparable legislation in New Zealand and Australia. Disruption of political groups has been well documented not just here in Canada but in other jurisdictions as well. That is why those other jurisdictions have seen fit to include a clause of this nature. Yet the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) denies that such a clause should be included in this legislation.
There are many examples of the abuses of countering and disruptive techniques both before and after 1974. These include the so-called preventive security interviews or briefings which can jeopardize the employment of individuals, relations with the press when members of the service plant material in the press about events or persons, misinformation and smear campaigns, disruptive measures which mislead other Government officials, the abuse of double agents and informants. As well there is the conspicuous surveillance and technique of intimidation which is an attempt to discredit individuals and members of particular groups.
These are types of disruptive measures that the Solicitor General assures us will not be conducted by the new agency. Yet when he is put to the test and it is suggested that a clause be included which would specifically bar such disruptive measures, a clause which is contained in comparable legislation elsewhere and which was recommended by the McDonald Commission, the Solicitor General says that he will not do it.
Many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee have a real fear that such disruptive measures may indeed be permitted under the Bill. Indeed, Professor Peter Russell, Research Director for the McDonald Commission, said in a letter:
I strongly endorse your effort to persuade the government to adopt recommendation 33 of the McDonald Commission calling for a clause in the legislation establishing the security intelligence agency which 'expressly denies the agency any authority to carry out measures to enforce security'.
The Government snubs its nose at that kind of very sensible recommendation.
Clause 13 would permit the Government to exchange information, to use a euphemism, with intelligence agencies of other countries, the existence of which is not even acknowledged by a number of those countries according to the Solicitor General. What kind of banana republics are we sharing our information with? The new security agency would continue to share information with them under the terms of this legislation.
The proposed amendments to Clause 15 would deny the use of any of the so-called intrusive techniques for security assessment. Specifically, it would deny the right to plant an informer or the right to use physical surveillance in conducting security assessments. According to this Bill as it now stands, individuals who are applying for a job with the Government could be targeted by the service for purposes not dealing with a threat to the security of Canada but to determine whether or not they get a security clearance. Again, consider the chilling impact that that has in a free and democratic society.
The final series of amendments in this grouping deal with proposed Clause 16. I wish that I had more time to set out clearly the implications of Clause 16 because this is a new power which is not contained within any agency in Canada at the present time. The security service does not have the power to engage in foreign intelligence activities. The Department of External Affairs does not have this power. The Department of National Defence does not have this power. Nowhere in Canada today does such a power exist. Yet the Solicitor General comes before Parliament and says that the Government wants the power to be able to target visitors to this country, anyone who is not a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant. Why? It is not because they may be a threat to the security of Canada since that is covered elsewhere in the Bill. It is because the information they have might prove helpful to Canada in obtaining information about external affairs or national defence. This means that no foreign visitor to this country is immune from the use of the most intrusive techniques at the hands of the security service. Their hotel room can be broken into. Their phone can be tapped. Their office be broken into and documents seized. Their income tax records can be examined as well as their medical records, not because they are a threat to our security but because they might have information which is helpful to us.
A visiting businessman, a visiting delegation of American Congressmen or a visiting professor who is an expert on eastern Europe matters could be targeted by this new service. When I suggested to a witness from the United States who is an expert on intelligence policy that these powers were proposed for Canada, she could not believe that in a democratic society such as Canada the Government was seriously claiming that it wanted these powers. If a government in the United States came before Congress seeking this kind of power, there would be a national uproar. Nowhere in the western world, including the United States, do such powers exist. In the United States it is only in the case of a foreign power or an agent operating on behalf of that power that certain intrusive techniques can be used.
This Bill would indicate to anyone visiting this country from outside that they are fair game and can be targeted. I suggest that the implications of that kind of proposal not just on the academic community but on our reputation abroad are devastating.
In conclusion, I would urge the adoption of these motions which would tighten the mandate of the new service. They are motions which would deny the right to send information to repressive dictatorships about Canadians or refugees from those countries. They are motions which would deny the use of
June 19, 1984

intrusive techniques for security assessments and they would effectively exclude form the mandate of the service this very dangerous, unprecedented power to collect foreign intelligence against individuals who pose no threat whatsoever to the security of Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, this is the set of motions that deals with the heart and core of the Bill, namely the duties and functions of the service. For that reason the Government must accept some amendments in this area. Surely, when the evidence of the witnesses is so clear, including that of the Canadian Bar Association, the Government would feel compelled to accept these amendments. However, I suppose I am blowing in the wind because the Government did not accept them at committee stage.
The duty of Members of Parliament is to take the Bill as reported back from the committee, study the recommendations and look at the proposals and report stage amendments so as to form an opinion and make suggestions to the Minister. I urge my colleagues opposite to look at the proposed amendments to Clause 12 because they are reasonable.
Clause 12 states: "The Service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise. . What do those words "or otherwise" mean? We discovered from the evidence that they mean that the service can do virtually anything. It will be able to do to citizens of this country far more than the FBI can do in the United States, which is a world power and a world source of technology and inventiveness. There are far more spies in that country pursuing their industrial secrets and military secrets. Yet the FBI in that country will not have the intrusive powers that the Canadian Liberal Cabinet will foist and impose upon the citizens of Canada. There should be people rioting in the streets over the incredible power Cabinet is seeking to impose on them. It is simply wrong. I am not sure why we are so complacent. So many of our people seem to have this incredible trust in the Government. Clearly on the evidence it is not warranted.
When you look, Mr. Speaker, at the powers governments have taken in this country in the last ten or 15 years, what do you find? You find the imposition of Crown corporations to an incredible extent, taxes that are extracted directly through the income tax system, sales taxes and energy taxes, and then taxes indirectly on the people by way of the deficit and inflation. To my mind Canadians should be marching in the streets.
It all comes back to Clause 12 of this Bill which was agreed to by the Liberal Cabinet without adequate review by the Government's own back-benchers. If a Cabinet of which I was a back-bencher put some of these clauses in the Bill, I would be standing in this House pursuant to the mandate that I received from my constituents and I would say: "No way, I am going to vote against you. I do not care if you are the Cabinet. You are responsible to the House. As a back-bencher on the Government side, I have a duty to hold you accountable. If you do not, then I will vote against you and if it brings on an
Security Intelligence Service
election, so be it." I honestly believe that many of the Government Members on the back-benches are not performing their duty. I know if they sat with their uncles and aunts and went through this Bill, their uncles and aunts and other relatives would be saying to them: "That is too much power in the hands of a Cabinet. It is too much power in the hands of a director. You, as my Member of Parliament, should be diluting it."
Clause 12 reads:
The Service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary-
At that point our Motion No. 32 puts forth an amendment suggested by the Canadian Bar Association. The Canadian Bar Association consists of men and women who looked at Bill C-157, made their submission to the Senate committee and had some of their recommendations accepted. They then looked at Bill C-9 and again throughout the process consulted lawyers across the nation who deal with this matter daily. They came up with the proposed amendment which would have Clause 12 read, after the word "necessary":
-for the purpose of protecting the security of Canada, and analyse and retain.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, are a real check on the abuse of power by the service. Yet the Liberal Cabinet has rejected the suggested amendment by the Canadian Bar Association. This clause goes on to read:
-and analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada-
We put forth the amendment at committee stage and it was rejected. We wanted the words "and probable" added. Within our common law jurisdiction we have jurisprudence built up around the words "reasonable and probable". They are in the Criminal Code. Lawyers have been using these words and judges have been making decisions on these words for hundreds of years throughout the common law tradition. The Government tells us that the words "reasonable and probable" are exactly the same as the individual word "reasonable". That is not so, Mr. Speaker. When judges look at a case, if the test is reasonable and probable grounds, that means something. If a new section says "reasonable grounds", that means the standard has been lowered and therefore people can be scrutinized for a much lower position by the Director and his agents than if the words were "reasonable and probable grounds". The Government itself should at least be maintaining the standards set under the Criminal Code of reasonable and probable grounds with which we have all lived for many hundreds of years.
Do you think that we could get the Liberals to accept this amendment, Mr. Speaker? No, because they got a statement from some lawyer, one of the 600 they canvassed in the department. Finally one gave them an opinion that "reasonable" was exactly the same as "reasonable and probable". All of us with common sense, let alone those who have some legal training, know that if instead of the words "reasonable and probable", which have been interpreted, as a conscious act of

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Parliament, a new clause uses only the word "reasonable", it is a much lower test.
What are the consequences of a lower standard? Our citizens can be investigated using such means as opening first-class mail, entering cars and houses, installing bugs in cars and houses and intercepting communications with lawyers. This can be done even though in common law there is a solicitor-client privilege, which is not the privilege of the lawyer but the privilege of the client to be able to deal with a lawyer in confidence. Indeed, lawyers' offices can be broken into at night and documents removed without leaving copies. Agents can destroy a man. It is the same as when the President of the United States destroyed good people who were innocent by turning the IRS on them. That situation could happen here.
Suppose you went to your doctor, Sir, to have a test for some condition that you want kept confidential for business or personal reasons or whatever. Agents can go into your doctor's office, take documents away and use them against you. That is not the tradition of this country.
That is not what our ancestors came here for. They came here to get away from that kind of conduct, for God's sake! But here we have a Liberal Cabinet making that a real possibility. I just do not understand why each generation continually has to refight the battles of 1215 and 1776 to try and get freedom. Let me come to the entrenchment of constitutional rights. In spite of the fact that our ancestors fought and died for the right to own property, the Liberal Government would not entrench that as a right, and that issue the NDP has to take some heat. Members of the NDP are not standing up for the rights of people to own property. They are just as glad that they do not.


Mr. Fulton:: What about the Premiers? Of course, they are Tory Premiers.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We understand, but this is the Parliament that sets those rights. If the provincial Premiers of whatever political stripe are opposed, we should be standing up and saying that we speak for the people. We know that some of our people come from Eastern European countries. As I said yesterday, I have sat around the kitchen table with many Eastern Europeans, people with marks and tattoos on their arms. They tell me this Bill is dangerous, and I believe them.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say something about a piece of legislation that strikes me as nothing short of treasonous. Regarding the duties and functions of this service, Canadians from coast to coast must wonder why not one single Liberal has stood up to support it. Not one single Liberal who is actually representing his or her constituents has got up even to make a comment on one of the most draconian unCanadian, treasonous pieces of legislation that has ever come before this House. As far as I am aware, it is endorsed only by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), who as I have said before will not be the Solicitor General for very long.
Let me deal quickly with Clauses Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15. With only ten minutes I want to spend some time on Clause 16 and on why that particularly draconian measure should never see the light of day outside this Parliament.
Before I do that, I want to add to the words of other Members in this House today. It is peculiar that the press have somehow been muzzled in this country on a Bill that portends to change the face and nature of Canada totally in terms of freedoms which many of our forefathers fought very hard to gain. It seems very few Members of Parliament are prepared to stand up and fight for that today. I can say only one thing, Mr. Speaker. This Parliament is dying as a result of the way this kind of legislation is going through where no one on the Government side gets up to defend a piece of legislation. The Opposition are always in a position of having to educate themselves on every piece of legislation and of getting up and fighting to try and change legislation. We have an occasional loudmouth on the other side. They never have the guts to rise and say that they stand for these particular clauses and why they stand for them. Not even the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has the gumption to stand and explain why he supports a piece of legislation which is clearly treasonous in terms of Canadian history.
The duties and functions of the service in terms of collection, analysis and retention are improperly worded. The clause is far too broad. Clause 13 in terms of security assessments is far too broad. I would encourage Canadians, who have some interest in what is about to happen to their rights now that closure has been invoked and this legislation is to be jammed through, to take some time to read this. Only those who are watching television or listening to this debate on the radio will learn about it, because the press has never bothered to come in here to cover any of the ongoing debate. The press does not even understand that if it starts writing articles opposed to this sitting Government or to some Minister, it, above and beyond all others-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) is rising on a point of order.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt my hon. friend who is talking about the press not being here. The Canadian public should know that there is not a single member of the Press Gallery, numbering several hundred persons, in the Chamber at this time. Probably none of its members are watching this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Obviously that is a contribution to the debate. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) should continue his remarks.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that was an important and timely point of order. As I said, I will focus my comments on Clause 16. With only 10 minutes left and with closure having been invoked, it is not possible for me to cover Clauses 12, 13 and 15. I do not think many Canadians recognize what we are
June 19, 1984

being asked to give up. We are gaining nothing with this guts part of the legislation that relates directly to spying techniques. Not only will it affect Canadians but, as my colleagues have pointed out, it will affect those tens of millions of foreigners who come to Canada every year. Very few Canadians realize that about 30 million Americans per year come to Canada and that there are literally tens of millions of others who travel through Canada either for the purpose of visiting relatives or for the purpose of carrying on some kind of business.
I should like to focus upon the wording of Clause 16. Very specifically it reads:
Subject to this section, the Service may, in relation to the defence of Canada or the conduct of the international affairs of Canada, assist the Minister of National Defence or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, within Canada, in the collection of information or intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of
(a)	any foreign state or group of foreign states; or
(b)	any person other than
(i)	a Canadian citizen,
(ii)	a permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act, 1976, or
(iii)	a corporation incorporated by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province.
What is being proposed here is to allow spying, not only in relation to defence. At the very least this clause should be broken into two parts to remove the distortion so that those who would quickly read it will not think that it is only for the defence of Canada. This was designed by the Solicitor General. I suppose the Liberals opposite know that. I am no longer so sure because none of them will rise and speak. This is clearly intended to be a very broad-ranging power to allow spying on anyone who comes into Canada, whether they are coming here to visit a relative, for commercial purposes or for teaching.
I should like to deal very quickly with the teaching aspect. The Canadian Association of University Teachers made a very excellent presentation to the committee, which was scoffed at by Liberal Members. It was supported very broadly by those associated with universities and colleges in Canada. Referring to Clause 16, Mr. Donald Savage of CAUT wrote:
We find this section ... seems to say, for instance in he university context, that two Ministers of the Crown can sign a document which will allow the security forces to collect intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of any visiting foreign professor or any foreign student at a Canadian university. It does not require that this be triggered by reasonable suspicions of involvement in terrorism, espionage or subversion. It need only be done pursuant to the conduct of international affairs of Canada. Nor does this section indicate how this intelligence will be gathered, but I assume that it would allow telephone tapping, mail opening and any other similar means to gather the information.
It is true that the section then goes on to say that such information will not be directed at Canadian citizens, permanent residents or corporations. However, no safeguards are provided for the foreign visitor. If our interpretation is correct, ... I suspect that some foreign academics may well have qualms about coming to our country as visiting professors if they can be subjected to intelligence operations in the casual manner suggested in section 16. We in Canada wish, of course, to have programs concerning other parts of the world of the highest possible quality. This necessarily involves invitations to distinguished foreign academics to come as visiting professors. By the nature of things, internationally respected foreign area programs must be able to attract such scholars.
Security Intelligence Service
We are not, of course, suggesting that such visiting scholars be immune from security legislation. They should be subject to investigation on charges of terrorism, espionage or subversion in exactly the same manner as other Canadians.
As I indicated, it was signed by Mr. Savage, Executive Secretary of CAUT. His suspicions and those of academics in Canada are absolutely correct. As a result of the desire of the Solicitor General to be able to spy on anyone anywhere at any time, to bug their telephones, to break into their homes, to break into their cars or do whatever he pleases, ultimately it comes down to base, crass politics. Certain people who are so taken by their own power demand that they be protected from any kind of forces of change. The ultimate reactionary conservative sits there as the present Solicitor General.
As I said several times in my speech, I consider these sections to be acts of treason against the people of Canada, nothing short of that. It changes what my family came here for 300 years ago and what they fought for in every war since then. That man and that Party intend to take it away. The press sits on its hands absolutely mute. Its members are sitting across the street drinking beer and drooling in their own froth. They do not have the guts to write a single editorial in the country to cover any of the debate here or to give the kind of round, sound condemnation which there should be of the Liberals over there. Those people are not fit to govern this country. In fact, they are not fit to live in this country. They should not be sitting in the House of Commons if they are not prepared to rise and tell us why they want these kinds of powers which can be put against anyone who comes into the country and which can be put against any foreign state. The Solicitor General should rise and explain. He should get one of jackals on his back-benches, who are only interested in their pay cheques and their pensions, to rise on this one piece of legislation and for once in the history of the country explain why they intend to take away all the rights for which I, my family and my forefathers have fought. I say that it is an act of treason and he should not be in this House of Commons.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: And people call us arrogant!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver South.


John Allen Fraser: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is well and favourably known to me. We have been good friends on honourable causes on a number of occasions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could clear up one matter with the Hon. Member. I recognized him to make a speech. Is he making a point of order?


John Allen Fraser: I am making a speech, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the Hon. Solicitor General and I have been allies on honourable causes. When he says that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is just talking a lot of claptrap-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I did not say that.

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


John Allen Fraser: -with great respect I say he is wrong. The Hon. Member for Skeena is saying exactly what I said a couple of hours ago in this Chamber. The fact is that the media of the country are asleep at the switch on this Bill. They do not want to be told that. There is only one member of the several hundred person Press Gallery of Canada in the Press Gallery right now.
A couple of days ago this Bill was called by Alan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, hardly a left-wing twit or some kind of screwball nitwit, "one of the greatest threats to civil liberties Canada has seen for many years". That got reported; Lord knows how, but it got reported. The Hon. Member for Skeena is not in the same Party as I am, but he talked about his ancestors fighting for the liberties we have had for over 300 years. So did mine. We came here in 1759 with the Scottish Regiment that was forced to enlist because we were pushed out of our Highland home. All those years we were loyal to the flag and to the Crown of this country. My friend from Skeena is right when he talks about the traditions that are bound up in the principles of this Bill. I am fed up to the teeth with this limp-wristed, handwringing, sanctimonious lecturing and preaching we have been getting from the Government side and some kind of vacuous minded editorial writers.
What is all this talk about Bill C-9 being debated endlessly? They go back to the Mackenzie Commission in 1969, the 1977 revelation of wrongdoing in the late sixties and early seventies, the McDonald Commission, Bill C-157 and the Senate committee. They say it has all been settled.
Where are these twits who say it has all been settled? Who are these people who comment like that, who cannot understand that, under our system of government, when you pass a piece of legislation the words rule you? It is the words in front of us now in Bill C-9, not in Bill C-157, the McDonald report or the Mackenzie report. It is these words that rule us. When somebody like Alan Borovoy can say that this Bill is the greatest threat to civil liberties this country has ever seen, somebody in the country should know about it.
I am fed up with the fact that all the reporting has been about a filibuster in the committee or in the House. What is wrong that these people cannot understand why we are indignant? I will tell you why. This Bill could have been and should have been a better Bill. The Government absolutely refused to accept a single amendment. The only amendment we got through committee, which would give to the review committee the right to look at Cabinet documents relating to the security service, went through because the Chairman of the committee, a Liberal, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), a damn good Member, voted with the Opposition. We got it through, and what does the Solicitor General do? He has an amendment, that he is going to present, wiping out the only thing we got in committee. That is what they are doing.
The media of this country, the several hundred people who sit around here and criticize us for the price of food in the
restaurant or the cost of the rug or MPs who did not pay their bills on time, all go to the restaurant. That is probably where half of them are right now instead of being here. I do not care whether every one of them campaigns against me in the next election. In the last couple of days on this issue the media have been a disgrace to a free country. As I said earlier, one day they will be writing editorials when something goes wrong because the proper amendments were not put in. It is absolutely appalling. I do not know how many deans of journalism there are, but this ought to be compulsory reading for every one of their students from now on. The media have absolutely copped out on this. I do not care whether they like me for saying it. The fact is that the Canadian public does not realize that the only time these guys and women come in here is during Question Period when you have the show. The rest of the time they do not cover this stuff. It is no good their coming now and saying "Well, we covered it months ago, we wrote some in-depth articles some months ago".
The issue is the fact that Canadians came to committee with suggestions for change, not suggestions to destroy the Bill, not suggestions to destroy the security service, not suggestions saying that we should not have lawful mandates that constrain, regulate and overview the security service. Canadians said the wording is faulty, it can be better. There are dangers in the loose wording that is there and in some of the concepts. What is appalling is that since the day we got into second reading debate, months ago, the Government has had no intention of accepting any amendments, nothing. That is what should be in the headlines of every paper.
As for John Turner and his reform Liberals, as I said earlier, it is not the old deal but it is the old deal writ large. I have to say one other thing about Mr. Turner, who is supposed to be a lawyer. This is the guy who has never told us why he brought in the War Measures Act. Once upon a time when I was 20 and Mr. Turner was in his mid-fifties I would have been impressed, but I am not anymore. I say in conclusion, knowing that nothing has changed, that everybody ought to be asked: Do you really want to buy a used government from this fellow?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to participate in the debate, given its tenor. I will explain in a moment. I cannot refrain from rising to comment on some of what I just heard. I totally reject the superiority that Members opposite want to draw from the fact that their ancestors came to this country so many generations before mine. I think I am just as good a Canadian as they are whether my ancestors did or did not come here in the 1700s, as the Member for Vancouver South-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was absolutely no reference by myself or by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-and I sat here during the whole speech-to the period of time in which the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) came to Canada. He is trying to abuse the process of debate.
June 19, 1984


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I gather from you that that was not a valid question of privilege, so who is abusing the rules of the House? It is the Member opposite, trying to make a question of privilege out of a statement that is not.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Now we have a point of order. I think I should be allowed to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) allow me one comment? I invite Hon. Members-and this is somewhat at the discretion of the Chair-to stick as much as possible to the contents of the motions now before the House. The Chair has listened to Members on both sides of the House with some leniency. Hon. Members have been allowed to digress from time to time to make personal points. But at this time we ought to strive once again to make every effort to debate the motions now before the House. I will be glad to enumerate them for Hon. Members once again. Having said that, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Skeena on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that I did not rise on a question of privilege but on a point of order. It demonstrates once again that the Solicitor General does not listen to what goes on in the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is quite right. The Chair had recognized the Hon. Member for Skeena on a point of order. At this time I invite the Solicitor General to continue his remarks on the motions before the House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I gather it was not a valid point of order either. The Member opposite did accuse me of treason. He did say that we should be kicked out of the country. He can check the record on that. He did put on the record how many generations he and his ancestors have spent in this country defending our liberties, for which I am very grateful. This is a great country. I only want to say, perhaps for those in the Gallery who think the Government has been reticent to listen to reason on this Bill, that there has been a great deal of process associated with this Bill already. Notwithstanding what the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) said, the Government has accepted over 5 major amendments since the-


John Allen Fraser: Not on this Bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: May I finish? It has accepted that number of amendments since the introduction of Bill C-157, which was the Government's initial response.


John Allen Fraser: That was not in the House of Commons.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that at this point in the debate we are dealing with a number of motions that refer to Clauses 12, 13, 15 and 16. Not a single member on the government
Security Intelligence Service
side stood to support those clauses. On a number of occasions, the Speaker has called Members on this side of the House to order because they did not deal with the motion before the House. It is about time that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) finally did so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would invite the Hon. Member not to reflect on the Chair's comportment in this debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Apply the same standards to them as you apply to us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) should listen for a moment. I sat down just a moment ago and I did request of the Hon. Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) that he confine his remarks to the motions now before the House. I will invite him to do so again, and I rise as often as is necessary, as I have been doing to invite all Hon. Members on either side of the House to do just that.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I will just wrap things up. I gather that I have hit a sensitive nerve opposite. I do not wish to delay debate. In fact, I will simply indicate that all of the reasons for which Members on this side of the House support the clauses of the Bill have been explained at very great length in committee and on second reading. Those reasons have been explained by me in speeches that I have made across the country and in interviews that I have given to journalists.
We do not want to see this debate prolonged unduly and repetitively. That is the reason why we are not standing up. It is not because we are arrogant or because we feel that there are no good answers; it is because we recognize that we have been elected to act and action in the legislature produces legislation. We would like to see this legislation, which has been very much improved by public debate, by discussions and by amendments, moved forward and become law. That is why we are not standing up. All of the other improper imputations that have been hurled across the floor to explain our failure to rise are just baloney.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed by the remarks that were just made by the Minister. It was just yesterday that the Minister and his Government moved closure.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Order. What has that got to do with the debate?


David Orlikow: The Minister knows that the debate on this Bill will end on Thursday evening. Members on this side of the House who disagree with the Government cannot hold the Bill up. We cannot filibuster the Bill.
If he had the courage, which he does not. the Minister could rise in his place and explain his reasons for the legislation that he is proposing. The Minister does not rise, not because he does not want to prolong the debate. He knows that the debate will end. The Minister does not rise because he knows that the

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
individuals and organizations for which he has worked over the years are completely opposed to many important clauses of the Bill which the Minister has brought before us. He knows that these organizations and individuals have made specific proposals for improving the Bill and have made specific recommendations for amendments to plug what they consider to be important loopholes in the Bill.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian Conference of Churches are all groups with which the Minister and his Party have worked for many years on many subjects including the Constitution. These organizations have now come forward with objections. Why does the Minister not use the opportunity he has here in the House to answer these-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I already did. I have answered all of those briefs. You know that perfectly well.


David Orlikow: I was not a member of the committee-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: But you can read.


David Orlikow: Like other Members of Parliament, I was attending other committee meetings when that particular committee met. Now is the time when the Minister-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This is the time for action, not the time for slicing baloney.


David Orlikow: Now when some Members have brought forward specific objections and reservations to the legislation that have been stated by responsible organizations and individuals is the time for the Minister to stand and explain the Government's position. Perhaps one of his colleagues could do so. I have never seen Liberal Members of Parliament so silent. I can only assume that they do not wish to be on record so that if and when they are questioned and if and when they are criticized, they can say: "Well, I was not very enthused about that Bill. I did not speak for it, I did not speak against it. I had to vote for it because that was what the Party Whip required." I sat on a committee with the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could the Hon. Member please inform the Chair of the way in which his general comments are pertinent to the motions now before the House?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I was simply trying to give some specific illustrations of the groups that oppose specific clauses. I would invite the Hon. Member for Mississauga North to speak on this Bill. I know that he has spoken frequently about his belief in freedom of speech.
Several Hon. Members have put on the record the views of the Canadian Association of University Teachers with regard to the clause of this Bill which gives the security service the right to put under very aggressive surveillance foreign academics who come to the country even though there is no evidence that those foreign academics are or may be involved in espionage activities. Let me put on record two of the letters which were received by the Chairman of the committee. These letters were written by university professors who-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They are on the record already, David. They are part of the record.


David Orlikow: They are on the record. Suddenly the Minister has found his tongue. For days he has been silent, and now suddenly he has found his tongue. I wish-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You have nothing new to say.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, instead of interjecting- although I do not mind his interjections-I would invite the Minister to stand and give me an explanation-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My answer is on the record as well.


David Orlikow: I would invite the Minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair finds these repartees from either side of the House disruptive to the process of debate, and they must certainly be annoying to the Hon. Member who has the floor. I invite the Hon. Member to continue his remarks.


David Orlikow: Let me read a portion of a letter which was received by the Chairman of the Standing Committee from the President of the Canadian Association of Slavists, Nicholas Zekulin. The letter reads in part:
We are, of course, aware that not all the activities of all visiting academics, professors or students, are legitimate, but this does not mean that some safeguards should not be built into the legislation specifying that there should be grounds for suspicion of activity inimical to Canada before the provisions of the act are invoked.
That seems to me to be a very reasonable proposal. As well, I have in my possession a letter addressed to the Chairman of the committee from Dr. Peter Bly, Professor of Spanish and President of the Canadian Association of Hispanists. He has written the following:
Obviously, we could not countenance the activities of foreign professors and students detrimental to Canada's security and would publicly support all attempts to prohibit the entry into Canada of such undesirable people. But we feel that indiscriminate surveillance and monitoring of bona fide visitors will adversely affect our attempts to establish links with Spanish-speaking academics as well as being a gross injustice to these individuals in question.
Those are just two of the many letters which I am sure were received by the Government. We are, as we should be, encouraging professors in Canadian universities who wish to learn more and wish to be able to teach their students more about countries in South America, in Africa, in China, in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. If they are to learn more, there must be an exchange of academics. Our professors must visit those countries and their professors must visit Canada.
Let us be realistic. Professors in communist countries are, in all likelihood, members and supporters of those regimes. Otherwise, they could not be professors. We know that when we invite them and when we permit them to come to Canada.
June 19, 1984

We should certainly be able to assure them that, as long as they are here for legitimate academic reasons and are not involved in espionage or any other aspect which is inimical to our security, they will not be spied upon, have their mail opened or their telephones wiretapped. We would expect the same kind of treatment for our professors who visit those countries.
I would urge the Minister, or any Member of the Liberal Party who is in the House, to rise and explain how this proposal, which will affect university professors and their organizations, could be viewed as being impractical. Why did the Government not accept that proposal? I would say that there is a very simple reason. The Minister has forgotten the things he knew before he took his present appointment. The Minister has sloughed off all the principles in which he supposedly believed. He is ignoring the advice and urging he receives from the people he has worked with over the years. He has become a complete captive of his bureaucracy and has caved in to it. That is why he has taken this view.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a number of clauses in the Bill. But I would first like to refer to a problem with Clause 12, which I think is typical of a great many other areas in the Bill, that is, the very poor English in which it is written. The language could be misinterpreted. If and when this legislation goes before the courts, it is the wording that will decide justice. It is not the way someone else interprets it. It is not the way it is discussed in the House of Commons. It is the way in which it is written in the law that will decide justice. It will decide whether we have justice, or whether we have an unfair type of law.
For example, in Clause 12 a sentence appears which reads as follows:
The Service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise,
The first thing I would like to know is: What does "otherwise" mean? Does it mean the bugging of cars, the bugging of telephones or the bugging of the telephone of a person from another country? What does "otherwise" mean? It is like saying et cetera, et cetera. It can mean everything and anything. That is the first thing which I object to in the Bill. I would like to know what the service can collect by investigation and by what other means. "Investigation" is a pretty big word. It pretty well covers the slate.
The Government added the words "or otherwise". Therefore, it can collect in formation by investigation or it can do so "otherwise". The words are not "and/or"; the words are "or otherwise". Therefore, if the service cannot do it by investigation, it can do it "otherwise", whatever that is.
I have not heard anyone explain that. It is a matter to which I take objection. If this legislation is sound, why are the Members on the other side of the House not taking their proper turn in defending the legislation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Because we want to vote on it, that is why.
Security Intelligence Service


Gordon Edward Taylor: Because you want to vote on it. You want to get it through before people even know what it means. That is what the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) says.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Before the session ends.


Gordon Edward Taylor: He wants to vote on it. He does not care what it means. He does not care how it will treat human souls, not a bit. He wants to vote on it. This Party wants to do more than vote on it. When we vote on it, we want to know what it means. We want to be able to explain to our constituents what the legislation means. But the Government is not giving us that explanation. The back-benchers sit there like a bunch of clones-pardon the expression. They are simply going to accept anything that the Minister puts into the legislation.
I ask Hon. Members on the other side: What does "otherwise" mean? Instead of standing up and giving us a lecture, as the Solicitor General did a few moments ago, why does he not explain the legislation? That is all we are asking. A simple explanation. It is like a teacher who says to a class: "You are doing it wrong. You are doing it wrong". That does not help the youngsters. They will not learn anything. The pedagogue who knows what he is doing will mark it on the board to show why it was wrong in order that the youngsters will not make the same mistake again. That is pedagogy, not dictatorship.
I would like to make a further comment about Clause 12, which reads:
The Service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary,
What is strictly necessary, "the investigation" or "otherwise"? to what does it refer? It is simple English. If the youngsters, who are sitting in the Gallery today, were asked to analyse that, they would tell us that it could not be properly analysed. We do not know to what the "it" refers. "The Service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary". "It", what in the world is that?
No wonder the committee is befuddled. No wonder an amendment was put forward in an attempt to have that wording changed. The committee proposed that the service's collection of information and intelligence should be limited to what is "strictly necessary for the purpose of protecting the security of Canada". That is what it should say. We are talking about the security of Canada, but the legislation does not indicate that. It says "it". Whatever is that supposed to mean?
The vote on that amendment in committee was: four in favour and five against, with the Chairman not voting with the Government. The Chairman said:
The chairman regrets that the government could not see fit to accept that amendment.
Is that not strange? The committee voted four in favour and five against. The Chairman is a member of the Liberal Party and I believe a lawyer, but I am not sure. I know he is well learned. He said that!

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Is it not a simple amendment which attempts to clarify the law? Is that not why we are here, to clarify the law in order to be fair to those people who are charged under the law? All we are asking for is a simple clarification.
That Clause is enlarged by adding words which cannot be defined-"otherwise" and "it". That is supposed to be drafts-menship? Whoever drafted this should enlist the help of a few good school teachers. They could do better.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It was the Senate committee.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It should read, "for purposes which are strictly necessary, and "for purposes of protecting the security of Canada". That is the proper enlargement of that phrase-not "it" and not "otherwise". We are talking about the protection of the security of Canada.
It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that for some reason we are not hearing from Hon. Members opposite. I do not know whether the new Leader has told the Liberal Members not to talk. Perhaps he has put a zipper on their lips. Perhaps he feels the legislation is so bad he does not want them to talk about it, and now he is going to bring in closure so that even we cannot talk about it. As the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) said, the press just looks at the Bill and does not even bother dealing with the inequities, the poor draftsmanship and what this will mean to the security of human lives later on. That is all we are asking the Hon. Members opposite to do, to think about what this is going to do perhaps to their sons, daughters or grandchildren. Imagine what the courts will do because of the way this legislation is worded and then you might be willing to accept an amendment which is sensible and sound.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was inspired by the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who has a reputation in this House for telling it as it is. He speaks because he consults. He speaks because he represents his constituents with great distinction and because he is prepared to listen to what people are saying on the streets of this country. I commend that attitude to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and to Hon. Members of the Liberal Party, because what we are dealing with now in this particular clause and the motion which has been put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), is a provision which would put some precision into the definition of the operations of the new security service.
What we have now is a very wide-ranging and vague mandate for this new security service. What we have now under the terms of Clause 12 is authority given to the service to go about this country and collect information on Canadian citizens, community groups, church groups, action committees and political groups as the service deems necessary.
I have never seen a better recipe than what is contained in this legislation, put into statute form, which would provide any
secret service agency with the ability to conduct witch-hunts, politically motivated investigations, and wide ranging irresponsible investigations into the affairs of the people of our country. What our Party has been trying to impress upon the Government is that when one deals with legislation of this sort, which in effect impacts negatively on the civil liberties of Canadians, and for purposes of security allows an agency to go about opening up files on Canadian citizens, to investigate their backgrounds, their social, business and other activities, which gives authority to this group to look at our income tax returns, which allows this service to go into our medical records, then one must say to oneself, "What about Canada which I always understood to be a country where freedoms and privacy are respected?"
So we said to the Solicitor General in committee that we think there should be some more precision in the wording of this Act, that the people of Canada would expect no less in a free and democratic society. We told him that if he is going to bring in legislation which is going to allow an agency of the Government to snoop into our affairs, there should be a very precise definition of those powers. I do not believe that is an unreasonable request to make of any government. I am not trying to be troublesome or controversial. I am simply saying to the Government, "Let us have common sense in this. Let us make sure there is a balance in the wording of this legislation". And that is what happened in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, how delicate the situation was. People did vote on Party lines, so the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, was defeated in the committee five votes to four. That was because the Liberals had the majority in the committee. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River, pointed out, the Chairman of the committee-who will admit it himself-is a partisan Liberal who sits on the Liberal benches. He was appointed by the Government and owes his position to government support. But I say to you, he has some common sense and some sensitivity with respect to matters of this import and has demonstrated himself to be a fair and competent chairman, and he has my respect. He was not required to break the tie. He was not required to cast the deciding vote because, I suppose, in that instance, the tradition required that he vote for the government position. However, he made what I consider a telling statement in committee. He said that he regretted that the Government did not see fit to accept this sensible amendment.
The amendment is exactly as was stated by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South. It gives precision to the provision. It does not say that the agency shall not have the ability to obtain information by these various devices it deems necessary in its own discretion and opinion. We just suggested that there be some tangible criteria established within this Bill and within this clause under which it would be possible for an aggrieved citizen to go to a court of this land and say, "This is not within its mandate because it cannot establish that the investigation was in the interests of the security of Canada". It
June 19, 1984

is a very simple definition of what the parameters should be in this clause.
We have been bringing forward suggestions, and it is an example of the intransigence and the blockheadedness, if you will, of the Government and of the Solicitor General in particular, that he will not accept any reasonable amendment. The Solicitor General is the captive of his bureaucracy, but he is not capable of making a decision on his own without advice from his bureaucracy. It has told him not to put too many constraints on the service, not to give it too many difficulties so that it will have to be accountable. For heaven's sake, that would make it difficult for the service. It would have to work for a living. I am not alone, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you who else thought that this motion was required-


An Hon. Member:: We are with you.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Over here we have quality as opposed to quantity, and I say to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party that I appreciate the fact that that Party is always willing to learn. I am trying to help the NDP-


Mr. Deans:: When we come to vote on your motion, we will rise with you.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know you will be with us. However, do not make it public, because every time you vote with us it causes me great political embarrassment back home.
What I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, is that the people who are in support of this kind of amendment are responsible citizens of Canada. They include the British Columbia Law Union, the Canadian Bar Association-not exactly a revolutionary crowd-the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and the Attorney General of Ontario. These people are involved in law enforcement and legal matters in their own jurisdictions. The Canadian Bar Association represents the legal profession across the country. Indeed, I believe I can go back to the Senate committee which looked at this matter. It indicated that it would like more precise language with respect to the mandate of this agency. All of these groups and the individuals whom I have mentioned have been supportive of the amendment, which our Party supports and which has been presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you must ask yourself a question: What is so wrong with this proposal? Why is the Government so adamant in its refusal to accept as an amendment an eminently sensible recommendation? Is there not someone over on the government side who can stand up and give a rationale? Let it be just one Member, I do not care who. I would even accept the Solicitor General standing up and telling us why he thinks he cannot accept our proposal. But all we get is silence. It does not augur well for Parliament when Members on the government side refuse to defend their own legislation. Let us assume the agency got out of control; what would happen? We would have a repeat of what happened in early 1970. There would not be one person on the Liberal side with the courage to stand in his or her place and say that the legal processes of Canada are being abused. They are used to silence, to standing
Security Intelligence Service
by like patsies and to doing what they are told. If that is the kind of government we are going to have under the Liberals, you can well imagine how the people of Canada will respond. They will see the cavalier and cynical attitude taken by government Members who do not have the courage of their convictions. They will not stand up and tell us why they refuse to accept the amendment.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: They are training for the secret service.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Secret service is right. It should be called the "secret (silent) service". That is the way these people are operating with respect to this legislation. They do not have the courage of their convictions and they do not deserve to be on the Government side.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to serve under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member who just spoke on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. A more fair, adept and appropriate chairman I do not think anyone could ask for. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) talked about why we do not support this amendment, or why the Minister would not listen to the amendments. The facts are of course exactly opposite. Before Bill C-157 was brought in, the McDonald Commission held over 300 hearings, saw 150 witnesses and read 124 written submissions. Then Bill C-157 went before the Senate committee. It heard testimony from over 30 individuals and groups and over 50 submissions. A significant number of changes were made to that Bill. Ultimately it resulted in Bill C-9. Therefore, to suggest that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is not prepared to listen to amendments is just not in accordance with the facts.
The problem we have is that we have another amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). We have been subjected to a farce. For example, at the very last minute we had presented to us in committee something like 300 amendments of the kind being produced here today. The attitude is: If we cannot have it our way, we are not going to play. We are not going to help with legislation and we are not going to have debate.


Mr. Forrestall:: What debate can you have with closure?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) hit the nail right on the head. The fact is that in participating in this debate one feels one is participating in a farce. There were some amendments put forward in committee on which we could have had good debates. We could have expressed our point of view and then had our vote. Unfortunately, as a result of the tactics adopted by the NDP-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I invite the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) to indicate to the Chair what motion he is presently debating. His comments appear to be of a general nature and of a very wide-ranging scope. I invite him to confine his remarks to the motions before the House.

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I accept your admonition. I was responding to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West and the farcical approach being adopted by the NDP.
There are merits in many of the amendments put forward both by the Government and by Opposition Members. This one is probably a good case in point. On its face it appears to be not a bad amendment. But those of us who sat on the committee know that every one of the amendments put forward here was put forward at committee stage. They were answered by the Solicitor General and all the reasons were given why this amendment or others are not appropriate at this time. Sadly, when we get a decent amendment, one that has been carefully thought out, such as this particular one put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), one feels hamstrung because, by endeavouring to bring the parliamentary process to bear, ond finds that one is participating in a farce orchestrated by the NDP, primarily by the Hon. Member for Burnaby. I am more concerned about the manner in which legislation and amendments such as the one produced by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South cannot be adequately and properly debated and then voted upon. The fact of the matter is that we are participating in a farce.


Svend Johannes Robinson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motions before the House are clear and explicit and I invite the Hon. Member to address his mind to the motions before the House and not to attempt to justify the shameful inaction of government Members-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), in the Chair's opinion, is relating to the motions at hand. He is explaining his position. I find his remarks to be relevant. They may be generally relevant but they are relevant.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if there is a person from whom I do not need lecturing on parliamentary procedure it is the Hon. Member for Burnaby. The position taken by the NDP on this motion and others is much more dangerous to Canada and to the parliamentary system than amendments of the kind the Hon. Member for Vancouver South is putting forward here today. We have had a muzzling of Parliament on motions like this one because of the tyranny of the minority. We saw it in committee and we are seeing it here. I think this is a good amendment, one I would like to have debated, one I would like to have the Solicitor General participate in as well. But when you get 50, 60, 70 or 80 amendments designed primarily to destroy the parliamentary process from Members who "if we in the minority cannot have it our way, nothing is going to happen in Parliament", then that is much more dangerous than the legislation itself. I ask the NDP to get back to the principles brought to this House by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Show some respect for this place so we can have a legitimate debate on this amendment and others and then have a vote. I do not intend to pursue any more of this particular farce orchestrated by the Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 30 in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to statements under Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of great concern to western Canadian coloured bean growers. In the gallery today we are pleased to have the presence of a delegation from the Western Canadian Pulse Growers Association. They are here in the capital to meet with representatives of Agriculture Canada and the Agricultural Stabilization Board.
For the past three years these bean growers have been trying to get their crops recognized as designated crops under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Their request for 1981 was basically refused, and they are still trying to receive a reply to their application for 1982. So far they have only seen and experienced the revolving door. This matter is made more serious by the fact that white bean growers in the Minister's own riding had their white bean crops designated under the Stabilization Act, to the tune of some $22 million for the 1982-83 crops.
June 19, 1984

In a communication which I received from the Minister, he stated "that the need for assistance will be evaluated in light of other government economic priorities at the time". Clearly the western farmers' plight should be an economic priority of the Government. Or is the plight of white bean growers a priority while that of the coloured bean growers is not? I thought we had an entrenched Charter to handle this type of thing. This type of discrimination is clearly not conducive to national unity, nor in accordance with the way Canadians expect to be treated by their elected representatives.
The plight of western Canadian coloured bean growers is critical. They are faced with depressed prices for their commodities due to a lack of demand, caused by over-production in the U.S. along with the inability of Third World markets to import because of the high U.S. dollar.


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



THE FRANCHISE


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I have received communications in my office objecting to the introduction of legislation that would give prisoners the right to vote in elections. In my view, extending this right is utterly ridiculous and the proposal should be nipped in the bud immediately.
We continuously give more and more rights to inmates, while doing very little to help victims of crime. Often these victims go through a great deal of suffering and pain, and are sometimes handicapped for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile the criminal does his time in an institution where he, in many cases, he has access to excellent sport facilities and eats better food than some Canadians living on the outside.
And now some are suggesting that the right to vote should be extended to these offenders, to murderers, thieves, rapists, and defrauders, to name just a few. Instead of giving the voting right to inmates, we should be improving the rights of victims. Such legislation has been before the House since February 7, and I urge all Hon. Members to work towards its passage and not to pursue legislation giving prison inmates the right to vote in elections. To extend this right would be adding insult to injury. These people are not confined for a paid holiday. They are confined because they broke Canadian laws, and therefore forfeit the privilege of voting.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House the plight of the subcommittee on acid rain. The subcommittee of which I am, or was, a member, fulfilled its mandate as prescribed by Parliament earlier this month with the tabling of its report. There are presently no provisions to reconstitute this valuable subcommittee. I fear it will fade into a polluted sunset when it is most needed.
Members of every political stripes sitting on the committee agreed that working on the problems of acid rain gave them as much, or more, satisfaction as anything they have done since becoming Members of Parliament. So long as the serious problems of acid rain persist, should the subcommittee not persist in finding solutions to this, Canada's worst environmental blight?
Our report is now in the hands of the Minister of the Environment. Sixteen recommendations appear in the report. Only a subcommittee composed of all Parties represented in this House can monitor the results of those recommendations. Should the subcommittee be dissolved, no single Member will have the clout required to urge the Minister to follow the recommendations. After all the miles travelled, and thousands of hours spent on research, it would be a moral crime to deprive Canada of the follow-through needed to stop acid rain.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, it was a breath of fresh air to listen to John Turner on Saturday night talk about the relevant employment issues in the country when he spoke about young people being given an opportunity to compete for government sponsored jobs. I know, the Canadian people know, and John Turner knows what the Opposition Members do not know, and what they should know.
I pointed out on three occasions in this Chamber since January that young people, new and re-entrants into the workforce, were placed in the lowest of four categories for referral to job-creation projects started by agreements with provincial Governments. I pointed that out, and asked opposition Members to intercede. Not one of them followed through to bring about a change. It is unfortunate that government backbenchers and John Turner have to do the job of the Official Opposition in the House. John Turner will be the turning point in the fortunes of these young people.



FORESTRY


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, across Canada our forest industry is in crisis. More than 300 Canadian communities depend on our number one industry to provide jobs. Municipal, provincial, and federal

June 19, 1984
Governments all look to the forest industry for tax revenue. However, the Liberal Party, like the Liberal Government, is blind to this industry. In the formal nomination speeches last Friday, of the seven candidates for the Liberal leadership, only one made any explicit reference to the forest industry. Who was that? You guessed it, Mr. Speaker. The candidate who mentioned forestry in his speech was the one who came in last with 83 votes, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). We would have hoped that at least John Turner, with his corporate involvement in MacMillan-Bloedel and Canadian Pacific, would have known how important the forest industry is to the Canadian economy.
Hundreds of forestry workers have been laid off by both MacMillan-Bloedel and Pacific Forest Products. Considering this crisis, Mr. Turner should appoint a full-time Minister of Forests to ensure that our number one industry receives proper attention. Apparently the new Liberal leader, like the old one, sees neither federal opportunity nor responsibility in forestry. Mr. Turner cannot see the forest for the balance sheet.



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence this morning the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) stated that he was saddened that not one Liberal Member running for the Liberal leadership mentioned anything about peace and security. Such a statement cannot go unchallenged. I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Simcoe South, and all Hon. Members in the Official Opposition, that all seven candidates stressed the importance of pressing for the international peace initiative begun by the Prime Minister.
The future Prime Minister emphasized that he will put his energies towards issues related to international peace and security, with emphasis on defence, arms control, disarmament, and conflict resolution. In Toronto on April 24 the future Prime Minister said:
1 will follow in the footsteps of our last three leaders in the search of peace and international stability. I will seek ways to take advantage of the momentum generated by the initiatives of Prime Minister Trudeau-ways to give it a new thrust.
On the CBC program The Journal in March of 1984 the future Prime Minister said:
Peace is a concern to all of us. The old fears of war have been replaced by an even greater fear-fear for the survival of the human race. The devastation of modern weaponry defies the most fertile of imaginations.


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



ATLANTIC OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT-POSITION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the Atlantic Offshore Energy Accord, the bold initiative that our Party has taken which will encourage the timely development of East Coast resources for the benefit of the region and for all of Canada. An important component of our approach is the promotion of a positive and constructive climate of co-operation between the national Government and the provinces.
When Atlantic Premiers sit down with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) to negotiate, they will get a new deal, a fairer deal, and a better deal than that put forward by the Liberals in Ottawa. The agreement in principle between the Leader of the Opposition and Brian Peckford, the Premier of Newfoundland, proposes that a province will be the principal beneficiary of its oil and gas resources. Newfoundland will be a full partner in its own economic development and the management of its reserves.
A joint agency, consisting of three provincial and three federal appointees and a neutral chairperson, would manage the offshore. The province would have the ultimate decision in matters affecting the manner of development, as long as the attainment of self-sufficiency is not delayed. The federal Government will possess paramountcy if energy security is threatened.
Importantly, a province will be entitled to establish and collect resource revenues as if those resources were on land. There will be no discrimination with inshore provinces. Through a series of special offset payments, equalization payments will be protected for a generation.
The proposals of a Progressive Conservative administration outlined here are evidence of the conviction that the energy resources of the Atlantic region must be developed-


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately, the Hon. Member's time has expired.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday both the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) refused to state their support for small-scale oil production in the Arctic by using the mobile Arctic Island concept. Millions of dollars have been spent to prove the viability of this proposal, yet the Minister, who has known about it for several years, still procrastinates and is studying it.
June 19, 1984

Anyone who has examined this scheme would be baffled by the Government's negative reaction. The project would benefit several small Canadian firms that were hard hit by the National Energy Program. It would increase Canada's domestic oil supply, and it would create thousands of jobs, most notably through the construction of a major drydock facility in Nanaimo, B.C.
As I say, the Government's opposition is baffling unless one takes into account the fact that approval of this project would require Liberal Ministers, such as the Minister of Finance, to admit to a major mistake. Of course the mistake is that the National Energy Program includes a regulation and incentive structure that is only beneficial for companies looking for a mammoth oil discovery in the North, a discovery which in all likelihood will not be made.
There is no incentive system to produce tens of millions of barrels from small-scale deposits which have already been found. When there is a choice between a project that means thousands of jobs, increased oil production, and help for Canadian companies, or saving Liberal Cabinet Ministers from humiliation prior to an election, it is obvious how the Government will act.


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



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, despite heated warnings, and sound advice from a western Senator on August 6, 1980, the Liberal Government decided to proceed with the development of Northeast Coal. I have opposed this project from the very beginning, and presented over 2,000 petitions to the House of Commons, stating that these new projects will result in an overproduction of coal in terms of markets available to southeastern British Columbia.
I have called for a united front in the communities throughout the riding, urging the coal producers, workers, and municipal representatives to meet on a regular basis to protect the interests of the coal producers and the workers. Despite this, the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia signed an agreement in February, 1981, to proceed with the development of Northeast Coal.
I have also called upon the communities to endorse a resolution for the sale of western Canadian coal to central Canada markets. The New Democratic Party and the United Mineworkers of America called for a joint federal-provincial task force to be created. This was rejected by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Province of Alberta has now recognized the importance of this resolution and has taken steps to ensure that it is fully investigated, which leaves out the producers of southeast British Columbia and the workers involved in the coal mines.
Oral Questions
An executive of Fording Coal has described the situation as an economic crisis, and I plead with the Minister to use his influence with the Minister of Energy in the Province of British Columbia to ensure that the coal producers and the workers of southeast British Columbia have equal opportunity of supplying the coal markets of central Canada, especially since the whole problem was created by the untimely development of the Northeast Coal project by both the federal and provincial Governments.



CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION-CALL FOR EXAMINATION OF BOOKS

Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of this opportunity to give the new Leader of the Liberal Party a piece of advice. Since he maintained throughout the campaign that he could not tell Canadians or members of his own Party anything about his fiscal policies until he had seen the books of the Government of Canada, and since he claims that he will bring a new breath and a new life to the affairs of government as managed by the Liberal Party, I suggest that his first act within the next 24 hours should be to order that the books of the Sports Pool Corporation be opened to the House of Commons.
The House of Commons knows full well that that operation is riddled with incompetence, patronage, and every arrogant misuse of power for which the Liberal Party is famous. I suggest in all sincerity that the future Prime Minister clearly put his stamp on his Party immediately and open the books of the corporation to let the House of Commons see the contracts and finally find out whether the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Olivier) has been telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Otherwise, Canadians will have every reason to believe that the new Leader of the Liberal Party is no better than his predecessors.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the House of Commons whether the new Leader of the Liberal Party will be privy to any confidential Cabinet documents during the period that he remains a director of Canadian Pacific Limited, Bechtel, Massey-Ferguson, and other corporations?

June 19, 1984
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have authorized the Secretary of the Cabinet to brief the future Prime Minister of Canada for the purposes of the transition period. I have complete confidence in the Secretary of the Cabinet. I know that he will not put any possibility of conflict of interest in the way of the new Leader of the Liberal Party.


CONTENT OF BRIEFING
[Stage Direction]
Corporation during the Liberal Leadership campaign, said: "From a Seagram's standpoint it would not be a bad thing to have a future Prime Minister on our board".
Would the Acting Minister of Finance assure the House that in any briefing given to Mr. Turner, no material dealt with will have any relevance to matters which could affect the profitability of that very large and powerful corporation, Seagram's, of which Mr. Turner continues to be a member of the board?
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just so we might be more precise, will the briefing that will be made available to this serving director of Canadian Pacific Limited, Bechtel, Massey-Ferguson, MacMillan-Bloedel and other corporations, contain confidential information, confidential Cabinet documents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would think it would, Mr. Speaker. I would hope it would.


POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons whether the Minister of Transport will be discussing any aspect of transportation policy with Mr. Turner while Mr. Turner remains a director of Canadian Pacific Limited?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Minister of Transport is going to discuss with Mr. Turner.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any such material going to Mr. Turner.


DIRECTORSHIP OF MASSEY-FERGUSON
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In view of the fact that Mr. Turner is a member of the board of Massey-Ferguson, which is largely dependent upon support of the federal Government, can the Minister give the assurance that none of the material in any briefings given to Mr. Turner during the transition period while he is still a member of the board of Massey-Ferguson will deal with any matters which are relevant to the profitability and future of Massey-Ferguson?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Minister responsible for the shares of Massey-Ferguson which are held by the CDIC, but I will pass the Hon. Member's comments on to the responsible Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: 
BILINGUALISM
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mr. Turner has offered his resignations to those corporations as a director of those corporations.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They have not accepted them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure they plan to accept them. Therefore, I do not see what the former Leader of the Opposition is worried about.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO SEAGRAM CORPORATION CHAIRMAN
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Acting Minister of Finance. As he will know, the Chairman of Seagram Corporation, in reference to the reappointment of Mr. Turner to the board of Seagram


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, if I can get his attention. The Secretary of State knows that in many cities of Canada, such as Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg, to mention just a few, a very large percentage of students attending our schools comes from families in which the language spoken at home is neither English nor French. They are having great difficulty adjusting to our school system and to our society.
Given the fact that their parents came here as a result of an immigration policy adopted by Liberal Governments, given the fact that the school districts in which they go to school, and the provinces in which they reside, are Finding it impossible to provide the financial resources to upgrade their education, would the Minister give consideration to the federal Government helping and co-operating with the school districts and the provinces to improve educational facilities so these children as
June 19, 1984

they pass through our schools can really fit into Canadian society?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. In fact I would like to inform the Hon. Member that we already have agreements with the ten provinces of Canada. We signed an agreement with the Province of British Columbia more than a year ago. These are agreements under which we provide to the provinces half of the cost for the equipment, the material, and the cost of teaching one or the other of the official languages in Canada. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has already notified his provincial colleagues to reopen those agreements in order to reflect the needs of the provinces better, especially the needs of the new Canadians who have access to the school systems and to the labour market, to make sure that new Canadians have all the facilities with which to join the labour force, to join the educational system, and so have their fair share in Canadian society.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of just helping new Canadians learn one of the official languages. It is a question of all the difficulties they have because they are just not ready for one of our languages. What is needed is not teaching in another language. What is needed is new text books, new work books, and teaching aids. In fact a whole range of things are required. That is very expensive and that, we have been told by school districts, they simply cannot provide.


NATIVE INDIAN CHILDREN-ACCESS TO ABORIGINAL LANGUAGE EDUCATION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may I direct my question to the Secretary of State which he might discuss with the Minister of Indian Affairs. The same problems apply in many Canadian cities to native children who are now attending schools in the cities in very large numbers. Would the Secretary of State and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development give consideration to what is needed and the kind of help which the provinces and the school districts require so that our Indian children, who are attending schools in cities, can at least have a chance to fit into society, a chance which they have not had up until now?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the Throne Speech of last December contained a provision through which the Government of Canada expressed its intention to favour the teaching of heritage languages and among them, of course, aboriginal languages.
I have negotiated an agreement recently with the Government of the Northwest Territories through which we will teach, and make available, seven aboriginal languages in the Northwest Territories. My colleague, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, is in continuing discussion with the prov-
Oral Questions
inces to favour the teaching of native languages. There are at least four provinces in Canada which have included in their curricula the teaching of native languages. It is a domain of public interest, and it is a domain to which the Canadian Government has already devoted large sums of money. There is no doubt the preoccupation which the Hon. Member has expressed recently will be taken up by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make sure that aboriginal languages remain part of the teaching of languages in Canada.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would he quite clearly tell us whether he believes it is appropriate for Mr. Turner to see briefing documents before he has resigned all of his directorships?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend being overly technical with this. Obviously if the Opposition is concerned about a possible conflict of interest, in my first answer I indicated that I had confidence in the Secretary of the Cabinet in making sure there would be no possibility of such a conflict. That was answer number one. Answer number two is that, if Mr. Turner has resigned, I do not imagine the CPR or any of those other companies are going to hold a meeting of the board of directors in the next few days at which Mr. Turner will be in a position to use the very secret knowledge that he has from the Secretary of the Cabinet in a way which is detrimental to the people of Canada or beneficial to the CPR. The whole thing seems so far-fetched and preposterous, Mr. Speaker, that I am not seeing-


John William Bosley: How do you know?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the problem as tragically as the Hon. Member. Mr. Turner is an honourable man, and I am sure he is not going to exploit any information he has, for devious purposes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What about the conflict of interest guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Opposition should realize that he as Prime Minister designate is entitled to have access to the workings of the Government and to prepare the succession. He is entitled to have the knowledge which is even made available to the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to preparing the mechanics of a changeover. The Hon. Member is coming back on the same technical point as the one the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead raised.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ha, technical.

June 19, 1984
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ha, yes. The Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head says ha, technical. That is what it is-ha, technical, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is what you tell Alastair Gillespie.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, The Prime Minister, I take it, continues to regard conflict of interest rules as simply a technical matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
John William Bosley: My question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. Since we know the standards of the Prime Minister on this matter, let me ask him another question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I sense a certain nervousness on the other side.


John William Bosley: Will the Prime Minister undertake to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister designate and report to this House what the standards are of the Prime Minister designate with regard to conflict of interest? In other words, will he tell us, after talking with Mr. Turner, whether Mr. Turner believes it is reasonable while he maintains his directorships to see confidential briefing documents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be happy to take notice of the question on behalf of Mr. Turner, Mr. Speaker.


CORPORATE DIRECTORSHIP RESIGNATIONS
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. If you exclude the activities of the companies with which Mr. Turner is connected, the briefing books will be pretty thin indeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: I have one simple question for the Prime Minister. Has he himself suggested to Mr. Turner that Mr. Turner should resign the corporate directorships before taking office-like now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not suggested that to Mr. Turner. It seems to me self-evident that Mr. Turner is not going to be serving the CPR or any of these other companies.


Mr. Stevens:: How do you know?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has been elected Leader of the Liberal Party.


Mr. McDermid:: And elected to the boards, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He will be Prime Minister in a very short time.
I take it that the only reason his resignations are effective at the end of the month is only a technical reason, once again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is pay day.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He doesn't get a cheque unless he resigns.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Members opposite seem to be very aware of the technical and financial aspects of that particular date.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And the nation be damned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is their chosen field, Mr. Speaker, It is not mine. If it is for some-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wait a minute. You might end up on one of those boards.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They are looking for somebody-anybody.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have got to be gentle on the CPR.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You have always been gentle on the CPR.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: After all they may be looking for a replacement for Mr. Turner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have done enough already.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is, if drafted, I will not stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we are sorry that the Prime Minister finds questions and issues of public morality to be a laughing matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, changes are being proposed to the National Energy Program to correct some of its more glaring errors. Does the Prime Minister feel that it is all right or acceptable for Mr. Turner to
June 19, 1984

be informed of these changes while still in the pay of Canadian Pacific and Bechtel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that Mr. Turner is in the pay of anyone. I imagine if one is a director of a company, one does not advise the company on a day to day basis. I imagine one goes to a board meeting once a month, once every three months, or once a year. I do not know.
I repeat, Hon. Members opposite are making representations. If there is some concern on the part of Mr. Turner as to the appropriateness of that date, I am sure he will reconsider it. If there is some concern on the part of the Secretary of the Cabinet on the appropriateness of briefing Mr. Turner, he will reconsider it too. The only effect of it is that Mr. Turner will not be able to be briefed until the end of the month. Therefore I will not resign until after the Queen comes, and then I will be happy and everybody will be happy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-AIbemi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It will be a grim summer for many young people in British Columbia. In regard to the Environment 2000 Program, of which I am sure the Minister has some knowledge, some 450 applications have been made in British Columbia under the environment aspect of the program. Only 50 of those applications have been approved, and all the funding has run out.
In view of the importance of those projects and some of the anger generated by the refusal of applications, is the Minister aware of any additional funding which could go not only to British Columbia but nationally to the Environment 2000 Program, to put many young Canadians back to work over the summer months?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, of course I am very much aware of the Environment 2000 Program. I think the Hon. Member is aware of the recent addition to funding which was announced for the program earlier this month, or at the end of last month. I am not responsible for the administration of the program. It is in the hands of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. I can neither attest to the accuracy of the statements of the Hon. Member nor can I tell him how much funding remains in the program. However, I will be happy to forward his representations to the Minister of the Environment who no doubt will be in touch to provide him with accurate information as soon as possible.
Oral Questions


CREATION OF JOBS IN FOREST INDUSTRY
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister responsible for forestry who, I understand, will not be back before the end of the session, I will direct my question regarding the forest industry to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There are two million people out of work in Canada, and we have a very seriously depleted forest resource. Our most important renewable resource is in need of great reforestation and intensive management.
Would the Minister commit himself to joining with the Minister responsible for forestry to call a national conference on forestry, including the federal and provincial Governments as well as labour and management, to work out a comprehensive strategy for reforestation and employment on a permanent basis for the many forest workers who are out of work and will not be getting back into the manufacturing aspect of the forest industry, but who could certainly serve in reforestation and in intensive management of our most important renewable resource?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am really a little startled by the Hon. Member's question. He should know-perhaps he does, and does not care to say it directly-that there have been continuing meetings between the Ministers of Forestry at the provincial level and their federal counterpart. Indeed, as a result of those meetings a federal forest strategy was brought forward and was discussed with the provinces. We are in the process of signing individual agreements with each of the provinces to focus on reforestation and silvaculture problems and responses.
The fact of the matter, as he should know, is that in his own province it is the failure of the provincial Government to support those activities, and indeed the withdrawal of the provincial Government from some programs such as the Employment Bridging Assistance Program, which have undermined those efforts. There has been a continuing, firm, and constant effort on the part of the federal Government to respond exactly to those problems within the framework of the forest strategy which has already been developed. His criticisms, and I hope he would make them with great vigour, should be directed toward provincial authorities in his own province, not toward this side of the House.


POSSIBLE UNITED STATES ACTION TO LIMIT IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN STEEL
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. While the Minister was having polite discussions with Mr. Shultz of the United States regarding free trade, Congress was very busy with legislation labelling Canada as a nation which is dumping steel into the United States. That involves 5,000 jobs and almost $1 billion worth of export


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
19 juin 1984
Questions orales
L'hon. Gerald Regan (ministre du Commerce extirieur):
Monsieur le President, selon moi, il s'agit la d'une question extremement importante. II est egalement crucial que les deputes interesses soient bien informes. Etant donne i'impor-tance que le depute attache a cette question tres grave, permet-tez-moi de lui signaler que ce n'est pas avec M. Shultz que j'ai discute du libre-echange sectoriel, mais bien avec M. Brock, le representant commercial des Etats-Unis. C'est la premiere chose qu'il doit comprendre.
II doit savoir, ensuite, que ce n'est pas le Congres qui a juge que le Canada faisait du dumping sur le marche de l'acier aux Etats-Unis ou nuisait a ce secteur. L'etude du projet de loi en question n'a pas progresse au Congres. II est sur les tablettes. Ce n'est pas la principale menace a l'heure actuelle. Ce qui nous inquiete plutot, c'est la requete que la societe Bethlehem Steel a presentee en vertu d'une procedure en vigueur aux Etats-Unis, qui prevoit que Ton doit proceder a une enquete lorsqu'une industrie est durement touchee par des importations dont le prix est si bas que les produits americains sont invenda-bles. Cette enquete est menee par 1'ITC. II s'agit d'une procedure quasi-judiciaire. Dans cette requete, on ne s'en prend pas au Canada, mais bien aux importations en provenance de tous les pays.
Ce qui s'est passe, c'est que 1'ITC, au premier stade de son enquete, a decouvert que ce secteur avait ete victime des importations. II y a plusieurs autres etapes a franchir avant que cette question ne soit soumise au President qui devra decider si Ton doit restreindre les importations.
Des voix: Reglement!
M. Regan:: Entre-temps, le Canada presente ses instances au gouvernement americain au sujet de l'importance des ventes d'acier canadien aux Etats-Unis et il lui signale que les Americains ont deja les moyens de determiner si un pays en particulier pratique le dumping et de prendre des mesures contre ce pays. Les Etats-Unis n'ont pas a prendre une mesure generate qui nuirait aux exportations canadiennes vers les Etats-Unis. Nous continuerons de presenter nos instances a cet egard.


M. Friesen:: Avec ce genre de charabia, j'aimerais autant que le ministre ne passe plus son temps au Etats-Unis, afin qu'il ne nous mette pas davantage dans l'embarras.


ON DEMANDE DES MESURES POUR PROTEGER LES EMPLOIS AU CANADA
M. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-Delta-Nord):: Monsieur le President, je ne parle pas de la petition 201. Je parle du projet de loi. La petition 201 peut constituer un jugement contre le Canada, mais le projet de loi met le Canada dans le meme sac que tous les autres pays qui eux pratiquent le dumping, alors que le Canada n'en fait rien. Pourquoi le ministre n'a-t-il pas fait des demarches aux Etats-Unis pour veiller a ce que la reputation du Canada demeure sans tache, pour proteger 5,000 emplois et des echanges commerciaux d'un milliard?
En outre, lorsque le ministre convoquera ses homologues provinciaux a une reunion, va-t-il veiller a ce que toutes les provinces y participent, contrairement a ses plans anterieurs ou la Colombie-Britannique et cinq autres provinces en etaient exclues? Veillera-t-il a ce que toutes les provinces puissent
faire entendre leur voix quand il s'agira de discuter d'un plan commun pour contrer ce genre de strategie aux Etats-Unis?
Des voix: Bravo!
L'hon. Gerald Regan (ministre du Commerce exterieur):
Monsieur le President, je crois que les deputes applaudissent trop facilement. Ils ont le devoir de veiller a ce que Ton pose une question intelligente avant de reagir de cette maniere.
Voici maintenant que le depute parle du projet de loi qui a ete presente au Congres, plutot que de la petition 201.


M. Friesen:: C'etait l'objet de ma premiere question.


M. Regan:: Il devrait savoir que c'est la petition 201 qui constitue l'initiative dangereuse pour les interets de l'industrie siderurgique canadienne a l'heure actuelle. Le projet de loi n'a ete que presente au Congres ou son etude n'a pas vraiment avance. En reponse a nos protestations a ce sujet, le gouvernement americain a tres clairement fait savoir qu'il s'y opposait tout comme il s'etait oppose a d'autres mesures protectionnis-tes similaires qui ont fait long feu a propos de la participation du Canada a la fabrication des automobiles ou a d'autres encore qui auraient pu avoir des repercussions facheuses sur l'industrie canadienne. Nous protestons aupres des Americains de la meme fa?on qui s'est revelee appropriee. Nous avons gagne notre cause dans le cas du bois d'oeuvre et dans le cas de la pomme de terre. Nous ferons encore beaucoup mieux dans ce cas-ci si le depute suivait la voie que les gouvernements provinciaux et le secteur prive ont suivie avec nous dans le cas du bois d'oeuvre et qu'ils se proposent de suivre avec nous dans le cas de l'acier, c'est-a-dire de travailler ensemble, calmement et efficacement, dans les interets des travailleurs canadiens.


QUESTIONS OUVRIERES
M. Doug Lewis (Simcoe-Nord):: Monsieur le President, j'ai une question a poser au ministre de l'Emploi et de l'lmmigra-tion. Aux Etats-Unis, le taux de chomage est de 7.5 p. 100. Il a baisse de .3 p. 100 le mois dernier. Ici le taux de chomage est de 11.7 p. 100. Il a monte de .3 p. 100 le mois dernier. Comment le ministre explique-t-il cette difference et cette tendance?
L'hon. John Roberts (ministre de l'Emploi et de ('Immigration): Monsieur le President, j'ai souvent repondu a cette question a la Chambre. Ce qui explique la difference des taux entre le Canada et les Etats-Unis, a mon avis, c'est la difference des arrivees sur le marche du travail. Si par exemple on remonte a 1970 et qu'on tienne compte de la croissance de la population adulte au Canada, on constate que la force de travail s'est accrue beaucoup plus vite que la population adulte. Je dirai meme que si la force de travail ne s'etait pas accrue plus vite que la population adulte, le taux de chomage se situerait au Canada entre 2 et 3 p. 100, au lieu de depasser largement les 11 p. 100. Il faut tenir compte non seulement des creations d'emplois, auquel cas notre taux n'est pas pire que celui des Etats-Unis, mais aussi de la situation difficile qui est causee en partie par des facteurs demographiques et en partie par le grand nombre de femmes qui cherchent du travail, ce qui explique l'ampleur du probleme.
June 19, 1984

levels in Canada would be between 2 per cent and 3 per cent, not well over 11 per cent. One has to look not only at the creation of jobs, in which case our rate does not compare unfavourably with that of the United States, but one has also to look at the degree of challenge which is caused partially by demographic factors, partially by the high rate of entry of women into the labour force, to see the extent of the problem we face.
The problem we face in creating jobs really is extraordinary and in a sense unique because of the very high entry into the labour force that we have had up to the present time. As one looks ahead toward the end of the decade, the demographic factors shift and we will not have to the same degree the factor of entry of young people into the labour force as we have had over the last few years. The Hon. Member asks me to explain the divergence between the Canadian rate and the American rate. The essential explanation lies in the facts as I have described to him.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work are not prepared to wait to the end of the decade.


FINANCE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Finance. In the United States personal income taxes have been cut 28 per cent in the past three years. That tax cut has produced consumer spending, industrial growth, and created jobs. Will the Minister agree that the accumulation of huge deficits, started in the early seventies by Mr. Turner and continued by the present Government, has eliminated the Government's ability to cut taxes and thus create jobs?


Roy MacLaren: No,
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite has overlooked the fact that in Canada, unlike the United States, income tax is indexed. Therefore we have an automatic and built-in means of restraining tax increases in Canada which is unavailable in the United States. Further, we in Canada have the opportunity to write off certain expenses and costs which is not present in the United States, and which also can provide an additional stimulus to economic growth.
* *


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of questions for the Minister of Transport. My questions are with regard to the attempt of CN and VIA to reduce safety, service, and employment in Canada's railway system. As the
Oral Questions
Minister knows, today in Churchill the CTC is holding a hearing on CN's application to tear down local stations and to remove station agents from nine northern communities. This is an action which CN is also taking in a number of other communities throughout western Canada and northern Ontario.
One method that CN uses to decrease service is not to advertise the local telephone number in the phone book in a community. For example, in the community of Cranberry Portage there are ten numbers for CN and VIA, but not one of them is the local number. After doing this for a number of years, it applies to the Canadian Transport Commission to take away the station and the job of the local agent. Is that fair, Mr. Minister, and what are you going to do about it?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member for Churchill that in the last three or four months we have taken a number of new initiatives to improve service in northern Manitoba substantially. I particularly draw to his attention the inauguration of the new rail bus demonstration which is a highly innovative and new attempt to provide an effective means of rail transportation for northern residents. That has been part of the new railway transportation package that we signed by way of agreement with the Government of Manitoba, and to which CN is a party.
In addition, as the Member knows, we have committed a substantial number of dollars for the improvement of the Port of Churchill and the development of the new freight rate system and freight car system in that area. It would be proper to say that we are paying a high degree of attention to the transportation interests of the North. What is taking place in terms of the CTC hearings is the opportunity for residents, the railways, and all other interested parties to present their case on how we can provide those transportation services at an efficient level.
Rather than raising somewhat spurious comments, as the Hon. Member has done in the press, he would be much better off to present his case to the CTC which has been able to make judgments based on a proper assessment of all points of view rather than trying to play politics in the local press or in the House of Commons, because the CTC is there to make those decisions.


NON-ADVERTISING OF LOCAL SERVICE TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister read the local press and the Winnipeg Free Press, perhaps he would recognize that the remarks quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press were from my submission to the Canadian Transport Commission. I am now going to the Minister in his role as the Minister to whom CN and VIA Rail report, and asking him directly why those Crown corporations do not advertise the number of the local station in the local telephone book. How does he expect local people and tourists to do business with local station agents if the local number is not listed in the

June 19, 1984
Oral Questions
phone book? Why is there an unlisted number for those stations?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I just pointed out to the Hon. Member that the representations that will be judged are those that will be made to the Canadian Transport Commission. It is there to assess the various claims and propositions put forward by Members of Parliament, local residents, or whomever, and to judge whether effective service is being provided. The Hon. Member for Churchill is less than charitable and less than informative in his unwillingness to recognize the major investments being made in northern Manitoba by CN and VIA Rail, substantially improving transportation and passenger services. If he were doing his job as a Member of Parliament he would be prepared to offer a full range of services, rather than picking out one particular point with which he happens to disagree.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister is probably aware of the fact that young welfare recipients in Quebec are asking to have their benefits of $152 per month raised to the same level as benefits received by welfare recipients over thirty years old.
Could the minister inform the House whether under the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal Government would be prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost of increasing welfare benefits paid by the Government of Quebec to young welfare recipients in Quebec?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, the federal Government would automatically pay Mr. Levesque's Government, in other words, Quebec, 50 per cent of any increase the Government of Quebec decides to give young welfare recipients. However, although the present monthly amount of $152 is very low, the federal Government does not have the right, according to the Constitution, to ask or suggest that Quebec increase that amount. On the other hand, if the Government of Quebec, through Mrs. Pauline Marois, should take the initiative, it does not need our permission, and we would automatically reimburse 50 per cent of the amount involved.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. In responding to his last remarks, I recognize the importance of the agreements in northern Manitoba.
If you take away the local agent, which is what the application by CN is, how do you make use of the improvements? What do the people who live in those communities do when the local agent is taken away and the local station is taken down? What do tourists who come to town do when there is no local service?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I expect that that decision would be made once a decision has been made by the CTC. Unlike the Hon. Member who seems to see everything in a pessimistic and negative way, I am confident that the Canadian Transport Commission will carefully weigh all of the evidence presented to it. If, in its judgment, it feels that the station agent should not be removed, it would so decide. If it decides otherwise, then we would obviously take whatever action is required to make sure that there is a full range of services.
The unfortunate part of the Hon. Member's question is that he is already making an assumption what the decision will be before the CTC has had a chance to hear the evidence or make a judgment. I would expect that we would all be much better off if we allowed the CTC to listen to the evidence. If some form of remedial action is then required, I would assure the Hon. Member that I will act in the best interests of the people of the area of Churchill, as I have in the past.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Bearing in mind that the red meat industry is in some difficulty with respect to prices and that the long and historically established western packing industry is certainly in some considerable stress, I would like to ask the Minister what action is he taking with respect to curtailing the dumping of northern European beef into Canada, and particularly that from the country of Ireland.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the inquiry which is deciding whether or not countervailing action should be taken should be finished soon, if it is not finished already. I have not had time to check on it in the last couple of days. I will return to my office shortly and check to see what the situation is at the present time.
June 19, 1984


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I would trust that the Minister would add to that that he will check on it and report back to the House.


CONTAMINATED MEAT INQUIRY
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question I would ask the Minister if he would report back to the House after giving his consideration to the import of contaminated meats. My understanding is that some 40 per cent of meats imported into Canada have levels of contaminant chemical contents higher than the levels that are allowed in domestic packing plants. I would ask the Minister to give his consideration to that and cease the import of those meats so that our western packing industry might continue to survive.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, 1 have seen nothing concerning the contamination of imported meat. I understand it goes through a pretty rigid inspection process. The only thing I am aware of is that some meat was actually shipped out of Canada to Great Britain and returned to Canada. I have seen nothing like the kind of situation to which the Hon. Member referred, dealing with imported meat coming into Canada. It is inspected very thoroughly.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question arising from earlier questions with respect to briefings to his new Leader. May I ask the Minister how he plans to conduct briefings to his new Leader with respect to transportation when in fact his new Leader still holds a corporate directorship in the CPR? Can the Minister assure the House that such briefings will not take place prior to the time when the new Leader's resignation will take effect?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the question of briefings of the new Leader of the Liberal Party is a proper subject for discourse in the House of Commons. However, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that, like he is with most of his questions, he is a little out of date. Mr. Turner, as the new Leader of the Liberal Party, has already submitted his resignations which will take effect at the end of this month.


TIMING OF CORPORATE DIRECTORSHIP DESIGNATIONS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point of my question. Can the Minister assure this House that briefings with respect to transportation, particularly as it relates to CPR, will not take place while the new Leader of the Liberal Party is in effect still holding director-
Oral Questions
ships, since his resignations do not take effect until the end of the month?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Vegreville, because it is quite obvious that he has forgotten, that the new Leader of the Liberal Party is also a Privy Councillor. Therefore, he has taken a very serious oath which he respects, and which I hope the Hon. Member opposite also respects when we take him into our confidence. Most times that confidence is honoured. I would not say that it is always honoured, but it is most times. Therefore, I would assume that the same kind of discretion in judgment shown by all Privy Councillors in respecting the confidence of the Crown would again be respected.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has already asked a supplementary question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Supplementary, Sir. In the spirit of that confidence which the Minister is willing to share-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Perhaps he may


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has already asked a supplementary question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They got two over there.


Mr. Speaker:: To put the record straight, there was an initial question put by a member of the New Democratic Party and only one supplementary question was requested. The second supplementary question was accorded as a courtesy to a later questioner in that Party. The Chair has scrupulously observed the proprieties of fairness in this situation. I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have a single question to put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It would appear that there must be something of a bias in the job-creation programs, or perhaps some discrimination is taking place, because the Province of Manitoba has such a relatively low unemployment rate when compared to the national average, and the unemployment rate in British Columbia is twice that of Manitoba. Does this reflect some type of discriminatory practice on behalf of the federal Government in terms of its job-creation programs, or does it have something to do with the nature of the Government in that province?

June 19, 1984
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure from the Hon. Member's question whether he is talking about the Government of Manitoba or the Government of British Columbia.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Manitoba.


John (Moody) Roberts: He is talking about the Government of Manitoba. I would like to assure him that our programs show no particular discrimination against the Government of Manitoba, or indeed against Manitobans. I do not have the figures with me, but a couple of months ago, when the matter was very much under discussion in this House, we reviewed the over-all percentage of allocations and compared them with the levels of unemployment that existed over the past year. We found that when looking at all of the job-creation programs of the Government of Canada, the over-all percentage of allocations roughly reflected the percentage of unemployment, with some discrepancies which I think can be accounted for by the fact that some provincial Governments have more resources with which to tackle unemployment within their own provinces than others. In effect, there was a parallel allocation which pretty well reflected the unemployment percentage levels. If I can find the information easily, I will bring the figures up to date and forward them to the Hon. Member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister will recall that yesterday over 1,400 tobacco growers came to Ottawa to make an urgent representation to the Minister for an amendment to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act which would permit the establishment of a national marketing agency for tobacco. The Minister will also recall that my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Elgin and the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk, have likewise pressed the Minister, as have some of his own colleagues.
Back in May the Minister promised us that we would see such an amendment introduced in the House in the first part of June. Could the Minister tell us why he has reneged in honouring his commitment? Does he plan to bring this amendment to the House for first reading in the immediate future?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made some statements about the tobacco growers who want an amendment to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. As we see it at the present time the Act is discriminatory because it gives some farmers the rights to supply and management, particularly poultry farmers, and does not give farmers producing other products the same rights.
I would not be in favour of bringing the Bill before the House simply for the benefit of the tobacco growers, and I
have made that clear in all instances. The Act should be open and non-discriminatory for all farmers of all products. Farmers are not forced into using the provisions of that Act. They use the democratic action of deciding for themselves if they wish to fall under that kind of plan. If I can get the unanimous consent of the House that the plan could be that broad kind of a plan, I am pretty sure that we could bring the amendment to the House very quickly, particularly if we had the agreement of all Parties to pass it.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, our House Leader is very anxious to see that amendment. We are anxiously awaiting its introduction.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether or not it is true that she is being subjected to very heavy lobbying against this amendment to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and that this is the reason it is being held up in Cabinet.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Recently Petro-Canada informed an independent gasoline dealer in my riding that he no longer qualified for a minimum margin should the price of gasoline fall below a predetermined level as a result of gas wars. However, the outlets which deal directly with PetroCan and have the PetroCan signs are entitled to a minimum spread of two cents per litre. Therefore my question to the Minister is this: what will she do about this unfair practice which could drive this dealer out of business?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the case, but I can assure the Hon. Member that if he were to provide me with the details I would direct my officials to look into the matter.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reply of the Minister. Indeed, I will favour her with that information.
June 19, 1984


TREATMENT OF GAS STATION OPERATOR
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a telephone call from a woman who operates a store and a gas station. She is an independent dealer who sells PetroCan gasoline. Her margin was cut from 2.8 cents per litre to 2.2 cents per litre as a result of being an independent dealer. I would note that the margin of the other dealers was not cut. Therefore I would ask the Minister to respond as well to that question.


Judith A. Erola: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I will.


Mr. Speaker:: That kind of question might well be on the Order Paper in terms of the level of detail requested.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) on Monday, June 18, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on Monday, June 18, 1984, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Rene Gingras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), in both official languages, copies of the Agreement concluded by the Committee for Original People's Entitlement, representing the Inuvialuit of the area designated, commonly referred to as the COPE Agreement, and the Government of Canada, on June 5, 1984.
Introduction of Bills


PETITIONS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from members of my riding of Broadview-Greenwood. In the opinion of the petitioners, the Liberal Government has attempted unreasonably to stifle debate by using closure at second reading and committee stages on the proposed Bill to establish a civilian security service. They feel that the Government has refused to allow for broad public input into this process by denying cross-country hearings, and that the proposed Bill poses a profound threat to the civil liberties and privacy of all Canadians.
Wherefore the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to demand full and extensive public hearings across Canada on the proposed Bill to establish a civilian security service. They ask that the Bill not be proceeded with before such hearings have taken place.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 503 residents from the communities of Dauphin, Swan River and Sifton, who express their concern that there are over 60,000 abortions annually in Canada. They state their opposition concerning the commercial experimentation on unborn foetuses. They call for legislation to recognize the rights of the unborn.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which was signed by Mr. Shawyer, who lives on Rupert Street in Vancouver, and other people showing that whereas there are no pensions provided by the Government of Canada for individuals who work less than 20 hours per week, and whereas Canadian citizens who work a 15-hour to 20-hour week perform jobs which are an integral part of our economy, and whereas the citizens who perform this work are hardworking and deserve recognition for their contribution to Canadian Society, and whereas those Canadians who perform part-time work for less than 20 hours per week and who wish to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan should be entitled to receive pension benefits from this program, therefore the Canada Pension Plan should be amended to provide pension benefits for these part-time workers.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Hatton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-250, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

June 19, 1984
Introduction of Bills


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to abolish the existing prohibition to sell and to serve alcoholic beverages during polling hours on a federal election or by-election day. It is believed by many, including the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel, that the present law is archaic and unnecessary, and in fact, among other things, creates substantial revenue losses for the already ailing tourism industry, restaurants and other service sectors. Therefore, I hope that the House will see the wisdom to make this long overdue change.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



HARBOUR COMMISSIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain), for Mr. Benjamin, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-251, an Act to amend the Harbour Commissions Act (Port of Quebec Harbour Commission).
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), I would like to thank the House for giving its consent for me to introduce this Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide for a more proper representation on the Port of Quebec Harbour Commission. It is to ensure that elected representatives in the municipalities being served by the Commission are, in fact, entitled to serve on that Commission.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: That in relation to Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading of the said Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must confess, and I know it is no secret, that the Government always acts with great regret when any time allocation resolution must be introduced. Under a properly working House of Commons, one would hope that a debate would be proceeded with seriously and in good faith by all sides of the House and, having exhausted all of the reasonable arguments and exchanges which ought to take place in parliamentary debate, that Hon. Members opposite would be prepared at a certain point to see the question put, to express their views through the procedure of voting, and see legislation proceed. Regrettably, virtually all serious legislation of this Government and this Parliament has needed the assistance of some form of time allocation at some stage or other in order for that legislation to be carried forward. It has regrettably become a necessary role of the Government at a certain point in the proceeding of every major piece of legislation to introduce time allocation. Therefore, with regret, I rise to introduce time allocation at this point in the consideration of this very important piece of legislation.
Let it not be said, as the Opposition has been attempting to do, that this legislation, the ideas and concepts, and the question of national security, have not had adequate debate or adequate public consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an issue which has been on the front burner before the Canadian people in many ways, I can say, for the past 17 years.
A royal commission on security known as the Mackenzie Commission was established in 1966 and its report was published in June of 1969. At that time there were 175 hearings and 250 witnesses who all recommended that a separate civilian security service be established in Canada. Mr. Tommy Douglas, a distinguished Member of this House at the time, reported in this House, and I quote:
Without any reflection whatsoever on the very excellent service the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have performed, there is a great difference between law enforcement and the carrying out of the duties of a security service... Therefore, I think the recommendation of the royal commission for the setting up of a civilian non-police agency has a great deal of merit.
There was then the McDonald Commission which was established in 1977. That commission held over 300 hearings and heard nearly 150 witnesses.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And we have had about three hours.

June 19, 1984


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It received 124 written submissions. It made its report and recommended as well that there should be established a separate civilian security service.

As my hon. friends will recall, the Government tabled Bill C-157 in the House in May 1983. A special committee of the Senate was asked to examine and consider the subject-matter of the Bill and the Canadian Security Intelligence System. The Committee also held many public hearings, heard more than thirty submissions and received about fifty briefs. As the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House said earlier, the Committee proceeded with a clause by clause examination of the Bill. The members of this Committee declared unanimously, and I quote:
That legislation dealing with Canada's Security Intelligence System is necessary, and that it should be enacted in the near future. The status quo is not acceptable.

This special committee of the other place reported in November of 1983, and in January of this year the Government tabled Bill C-9 which is now before the House for third reading. On the second reading debate there were six days of debate and 57 speeches. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs received the matter at committee stage. There were over two months of meetings, 43 meetings, and 85 hours of debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And closure! You did not mention closure!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Testimony was received from 25 individuals or groups and over 50 written submissions were presented to the committee. I appeared for approximately 59 hours before the committee at 24 different meetings.
I have been sitting patiently in this House through this debate on report stage. I have noted the continued representations from Hon. Members opposite, including those from the Opposition House Leader just now, that there has been insufficient hearing. I would quote the respected journalist and former New Democratic Member of Parliament, Douglas Fisher, who characterized the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) as having "the gall and effrontery", to use his words, to say that this issue has not yet been fully discussed and debated.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Take it easy. It takes one to know one.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the honourable and distinguished Minister is quoting from a document. In accordance with House rules, I believe he should table the whole document which, indeed, contains some very interesting references to the Minister.
Time Allocation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister wish to comment on that matter?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not reading from the column. I am quoting one or two words from it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not actually have it here to table.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Table it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not have it.
What has clinched it for the Government, in fact, in making it obvious that time allocation was absolutely necessary, was a press release, which I am prepared to table because I have it right here in my hand. It is a news release from the New Democratic Party on June 5, 1984 which is headed; "NDP to block spy bill". The Hon. Member for Burnaby is purported to have said in this document produced by his Party: "If the Government refuses to act on these important amendments being proposed by the New Democratic Party, and called for by many witnesses across Canada, then the caucus will do everything in its power to prevent the proposed security legislation from being enacted in this session.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Table it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would be delighted to table it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this document be appended to today's Hansard.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, no. We are not going to waste the taxpayers' money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) is seeking to table a document. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A request has also been made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that that document be appended to today's Hansard. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


An Hon. Member:: Kaplan said no.


Mr. Parent:: I said no. Point of order!

June 19, 1984
Time Allocation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) on a point of order.


Gilbert Parent: I would like to point out, so that it will be in Hansard, that I was the one who said no in this House to that request.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In summary, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the New Democratic Party is not interested in responsibly stating its position and seeing Parliament function. It is simply interested in delaying the passage of this Bill and preventing Parliament from carrying out its responsibilities.
We are very close to the end of the session and the end of a Parliament. I would like to end my brief remarks with a recent quote of Professor Peter Russell, research director of the McDonald Commission. He commented as follows:
I cannot think in living memory of legislation coming as close to a Royal Commission's whole set of recommendations as C-9 now does. Let's get on with the job.

That is exactly what this Government is trying to do. For the first time in this country's history, it is seeking to enact legislation that would define the framework, mandate and powers of a Security Intelligence Service and make each of its activities subject to judicial control and a system of external monitoring. This would be a major step, but the New Democratic Party members have, through their actions, not only discredited their Party, they have also made it difficult to pursue the very debate they were demanding.

This Government, in the tradition of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), will shoulder its responsibility and, with the assistance of this House, complete the final chapter of this long book and bring in legislation that represents a great step forward in this important area of public concern.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) indicates that he has run out of patience with the process. Well, isn't that too bad! Let me tell you what we have run out of. We have run out of patience with a Government that, on second reading, says that when the Bill goes to Committee it will consider the representations brought to it and, where appropriate, make amendments. That is what this Government said, but it had no intention of keeping that commitment. It has put everyone through a fraudulent process on Bill C-9 which has gone on for some months. The Minister said 25 witnesses appeared at committee and there were 50 briefs filed. True. The one amendment of any substance passed in committee was one which got past Government Members and allows the review committee to see the Cabinet documents which directed the security service. What is the Solicitor General doing now? He is bringing in an
amendment to wipe that amendment out! That is what we are impatient with. We are more than impatient; we are fed up to the teeth.
The Minister talks about the Mackenzie Commission. Lord love a duck! Half the reporters in this town were in knee pants or in the cradle when that Commission came in. The so-called terrible things which created the need for the McDonald Commission were done 13 and 14 years ago. I asked the Minister questions in committee about the RCMP. I said:
The fact is, Mr. Minister, that for many months now-for many years in fact-since the revelations in the House of Commons in 1977 and the action which was taken consequently, the security service has been working as a part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The commissioner has been reporting to the Solicitor General effectively, competently and in a manner in which I am sure you would agree meets with your approval. You testify that this has been done in a manner which meets the appropriate sensibilities of the Canadian public. Is that not so?
What did the Solicitor General reply? He sat there and meekly agreed. He said:
Yes, that is so.
So much for his argument that the security service has to be removed from the RCMP. As for the argument that this is some brand-new security service being invented by the Bill, that is the most errant nonsense. It is exactly the same people, same typewriters, paper, cupboards, floor and rugs. The same everything. All this Bill does is set out an appropriate mandate and more rules within which that security service is to be constrained.
It is very interesting that the first act of this Government after the great convention that was going to reform the Liberal Party with the great new leader, John Turner, is to move closure on a security Bill which Alan Borovoy, the distinguished and eminent leader of civil rights in this country, says is the greatest threat to civil liberties since Confederation. But it is not surprising. Mr. Turner talks about a new deal. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is the old deal writ large. Mr. Turner was part of the Government that used closure in 1968 to impose the rules under which this closure is taking place. So much for civil liberties.
As for this pack of fellow travellers on the Government side who, with unseemly haste, bounced over to Mr. Turner when the Liberal establishment told them to many weeks ago, the question that should be asked the Canadian public is: Would you buy a used government from John Turner?
Under other circumstances and on other occasions the Solicitor General is a good personal friend of mine, but what he is saying today cannot go unchallenged. The reason we in the House are still fighting this Bill is that the Government has not accepted a single suggestion made by all of the competent people who came in front of the committee. Not one. That process has been made fraudulent by a Government that was not going to listen or accept suggestions. Clause 2(a), (b), (c), and (d) are the definitions of what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. Those are the key sections which trigger all of the activities of the security service. The language is loose and does not adequately constrain the activities of a security force acting in secret. But this Government will not
June 19, 1984

accept a single amendment. The Government does not want a parliamentary review committee.
Interesting, isn't it, that our neighbour, the United States, has a Senate review committee for security matters as well as one in the House of Representatives. But this Government, which just spent all last weekend talking about reform, does not want Members of Parliament to have anything to do with reviewing security in this country. That is the Government that does not want the review committee to see even the Cabinet documents that direct the security service because that would be a breach of Cabinet solidarity. Well, one of the American witnesses said that your review committee has to be a watchdog committee and it better not be a sleeping dog committee. Well, if you cannot see what the Cabinet is directing the security service to do, the committee is a sleeping dog committee.
These are substantive and important amendments. It is no good that the Government or some nameless person in a editorial office somewhere is talking about the Mackenzie Commission, the McDonald Commission, Bill C-157 and the Senate committee, saying that there has been debate. Why can these people who are supposed to be educated in the journalism schools of this country not understand that what rules us is the wording of the legislation here in the House of Commons, not in the Senate, the Mackenzie Commission or the McDonald Commission? What is wrong with a fundamental and elementary understanding of our system? That fact does not seem to pervade the editorial boards of this country, and it certainly has not pervaded the cranium of the Solicitor General.
As for the pack of sheep on the Government side, with the exception of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and one former Solicitor General, the members of the so-called reformed Party have sat there in dumb obedience week after week after week. Then they wonder why we are impatient. The whole process has been traduced by a government which put a Bill into committee and never intended to make one change to it.
It is all very well for the Solicitor General to talk about the 25 witnesses whocame in front of him. How do you think those witnesses feel knowing what is going on here? I talked to some of them. They asked what it was all about and why they bothered. Trust and reform are incredibly easy words to use. When you have a majority at your back for a limited period of time and the arrogance of appearing always to be in power, trust is dissipated like a will-o'-the-wisp at the first notion that someone may raise something which would mean you cannot have your own way absolutely. In 1688 we traded the Divine Right of Kings for the Divine Right of a Prime Minister with a majority at his back for a period of years. This is a brutally powerful system. When it is coupled with the attitude which has been exhibited on this Bill by the Government, the Solicitor General and the new leader, Mr. John Turner, there are no checks and balances in the system whatsoever.
Time Allocation
Let there be no doubt about why the Opposition is arguing about this Bill. It is because the Bill is not as good as it could be. It is a flawed Bill. We know there must be a security service, but eminent, intelligent and capable people came before us and made suggestions which would make this Bill better and more trusted by the Canadian people. The Government accepted none of it. This is not a day to be very proud of in the House. Every Member of the Government should be ashamed, as I am ashamed, of what is happening here.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the motion of closure before the House I would seriously suggest to members of the Chamber that this represents one of the darkest days for democracy in the history of this country. I remind members of this Chamber and those Canadians who are observing our proceedings that it is the same Government that brought forward the proclamation of the War Measures Act in 1970 that now brings forward legislation which constitutes nothing less than a massive assault on the fundamental civil liberties and privacy of all Canadians and anyone visiting our country. In the guise of protecting our national security the Government would take a sledge-hammer to our civil liberties. In the pretext of fighting totalitarianism and totalitarian governments characterized by an atmosphere of oppression and the suppression of dissent, the Government would itself adopt those totalitarian tools.
It has been argued that the status quo is not acceptable. I agree. One need look no further than the litany of horror stories documented by the McDonald Commission which reported in 1981. However, let there be no misunderstanding. Far from being an improvement on the status quo, this Bill represents a very serious step backward. Given the alternative between the status quo, flawed though it may be, and the provisions of this Bill, many Canadians would certainly say that we should not move forward with this flawed legislation.
The debate on some of the provisions which are of greatest concern has been stifled consistently. The Bill was introduced in January and the Government cut off debate at second reading. After having begun a discussion at the clause by clause stage in committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Gourde), the Minister's number one flunky on the committee, brought forward a motion of closure to shut down debate. I filibustered that motion of closure for three days and I make no apology for having done so. The essence of that debate was that by moving in that heavy-handed manner, the Government was denying the committee the right to debate, in a full and informed manner, the provisions of this Bill. The Government denied the committee the right to hold public hearings across the country on legislation which so fundamentally affects the rights, liberties and privacy of Canadians.
If there had been public hearings, perhaps there would have been a little more attention paid by the members of the press. I accuse them of blatant disregard of one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the House. The gallery was

June 19, 1984
Time Allocation
empty this morning and yesterday and is virtually empty today. They move around in their discussions, debates and great analyses of the flim-flam of leadership and completely ignore one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is a shameful denial of their obligations to the people of the country for which they stand condemned. I suggest that it is indeed members of the press who may be victims of their own negligence down the line.
The Government denied public hearing, cut off debate at second reading and choked off debate in committee. The chairman of the committee was forced to resign after having taken action to shut down debate in committee, which is unprecedented in the history of this country. We come before the House for debate at report stage and third reading and the Government once again brings in the guillotine. The Government shuts the debate down using closure. So much for democracy! So much for the rights of Canadians to a full and informed debate on this Bill.
We in this Party said that we would do what we could to block the Bill if the Government did not accept amendments which would narrow the powers of the new security service and prevent it from having the right to target Canadians who have broken no law whatsoever. The McDonald Commission would have denied that power to the security service. That power is not granted to any security service in any western country in the world. That power is unprecedented in the United States. It is the power to target Canadians suspected to be subversives or spies. That power should not have been granted. We in this Party said we would not tolerate that power.
We said that there must be a role for Parliament, as did the McDonald Commission. We said there must be effective parliamentary oversight to prevent this new security service from becoming a political weapon in the hands of the government of the day. Yes, we said we would block this Bill if the Government did not move in that direction. We said we would not stand idly by as the Government brought forward a bill which would brutally suppress civil liberties and expand the powers of the service. The expanded powers include the right to open first-class mail, the right to access confidential medical records, the right to break into one's home and steal from it, and the right to access all government records. Nothing is sacred in this country.
With regard to foreign intelligence, the Government proposes new powers which are again unprecedented in any western country in the world. The Government proposes to have the power to spy on anyone who visits this country. This is all in the name of protecting the national security of Canadians.
We in the New Democratic Party make no apologies for standing up for the civil liberties of Canadians. I can only express my profound regret that we did not have more support from my colleagues in the Conservative Party in this fight against this repressive Bill. They stood by in committee as this
Bill was being debated. They certainly have not put up the kind of fight which they put up against the National Energy Program or the Crow Bill. This bill is certainly one of the most important Bills to come before this Parliament. This closure motion effectively denies the right of Members to debate this Bill in an orderly and comprehensive way.
The Bill has been condemned by witness after witness who appeared before the committee. The Reverend Clarke MacDonald, Moderator of the United Church of Canada, indicated that church and community representatives have detailed the flaws of this Bill and suggested alternative ways of serving the legitimate security needs of Canadians. He states: "We urge you to withdraw the Bill in its present form". These are the views of church groups, academics, labour groups and civil liberties organizations. To whom is the Government and its future Prime Minister, John Turner, prepared to listen as it proceeds to ram this legislation through the House of Commons? This is a dark day for democracy in this country.
I would like to conclude my remarks with a quote from Mr. Justice Powell of the United States Supreme Court, who said:
The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjugation to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent in discussion of government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
This Bill must be stopped in the interest of democracy, liberty and freedom in this country.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, unlike the two previous speakers, I make no apologies for the use of the rules of Parliament, namely time allocation, when it becomes very obvious from pamphlets and edicts put out by the NDP that they were going to do everything possible to delay this Bill. It is interesting to note that the time allocation rules provide for an opportunity of discussion with Opposition Parties, then with the Official Opposition, and if no agreement can be reached on the appropriate allocation of time for a debate, the Government is required to take its responsibility and ensure that a Bill it has initiated sees the light of day and has a vote in the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is really condemned out of his own mouth. The fact of the matter is that if he had a legitimate argument in this particular instance he would not have had to resort to name calling, referring to people as flunkies and using other such terminology. It is not becoming of a parliamentarian to talk in that way. I think he degrades himself when he uses that kind of language.
None of the witnesses who came before us and no honest, right-thinking person would deny the necessity for having a security service in Canada. We have been singularly fortunate that we have essentially been spared the problem of terrorist activities such as those that have taken place in so many countries around the world. However, we are not totally immune and have had our own incidents, and we need this security service. It should be in civilian hands. We need this
June 19, 1984

service in order to have proper accountability so that our civil liberties might be protected.
As a former member of the rules committee, a high priority for us was to enhance the role of the Private Member. The way this can be done is through the committee system. It is in the committee that the ordinary Member of Parliament has an opportunity to participate in debate and to make necessary changes. However, after the approach adopted by the NDP at second reading and committee stage, I wonder if they have not set back rule changes and the enhancement of the role played by the individual Member of Parliament.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is inconsistent and you know it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As a result of the tactics that have been adopted by the NDP-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You want the Private Member to be good and when he does something you give him hell.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: This is typical of an NDP member. I am expressing a point of view and the Hon. Member is endeavouring to shout me down. At least get in your own seat if you are going to shout me down, so that if you have a point of order you can raise it. Frankly, I found the approach adopted by the NDP at committee reprehensible.
I basically disagree with the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party which indicated that it would like to see this security service returned to the RCMP despite the decision of the McDonald and Mackenzie Commissions, and the decisions made by the Senate and the Government, for that matter.
What approach did the Conservatives take? I thought that the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) asked a series of very pertinent questions at the committee stage. He raised the issue and it was debated at committee. Although they lost the vote, they made their point. We were able to have a reasonable debate. But what did we see from the NDP? They sought amendments to delete clauses of the Bill. There were 300 amendments brought in at the committee stage. What does that do for democracy? It ruins any opportunity for any kind of debate.
I basically disagree with the judgment of the Progressive Conservative Party on this particular Bill. I do not believe the service should be returned to the RCMP. No one has more respect for that particular agency than I. I had the privilege of working with the RCMP when I was Minister of Employment and Immigration. We had to deal with security matters and had to rely in large measure on the judgments and decisions of the RCMP. I was satisfied that we received excellent briefings and that the reports which I received had been carefully thought out before I was asked to make a decision.
In order to complement that particular protection of civil liberties of Canadians or of others coming to the country, I saw fit to appoint a board. It was made up of three members, a former civil servant, a former Cabinet Minister and a former judge of the Supreme Court in Quebec. They were to study the
Time Allocation
evidence that had been presented to me to determine what weight I should give to this material. I had no other way to check other than relying on the RCMP and the judgment of these three senior Canadians whose judgment I respected.
That is what we are looking for in the security service. We are seeking a "delicate balance", as I believe it was put by the Senate committee. We must have an indication that the information that comes before us has received all the necessary screening. I believe the report from the Senate committee was one of the better reports from the Senate that I have had the privilege to read. That Senate committee and the McDonald Commission indicate that a civilian agency is the proper medium for this particular service in Canada.
Hon. Members opposite say that they did not really have an opportunity to study this matter at committee. The fact of the matter is that the Minister has indicated that he was at approximately 24 committee meetings. In each instance the Minister indicated why the Government could not accept a particular amendment. Those reasons made eminently good sense, which Hon. Members opposite knew. In some instances they could not accept those reasons and they appropriately brought forward amendments when they could not accept that reasoning. I know that in many instances they accepted the Minister's reasons. However, likely in an attempt to delay the Bill, they saw fit to move a whole series of amendments. I am specifically referring to the New Democratic Party. We discussed many of these amendments at committee stage. Again, it was a complete waste of members' time. What is the point in having committees if every amendment that is presented at the committee stage is presented again at the report stage?
I hear Opposition Members talking with approbation about the American experience. American witnesses appeared before the committee. We had a particularly good witness from the security section of the American Government. She told us that they tried to introduce a Bill which provided for everything necessary to protect all rights and prevent any interference. That Bill collapsed under its own weight. There were so many qualifying phrases in the Bill in an attempt to protect civil liberties that the Americans ultimately had no Bill at all. Therefore, that country has a presidential edict. The Attorney General of the United States indicates what is to be done.
We do have accountability in our Bill. I think the individuals who will be called upon to look into the actions of the other security service will recognize their responsibilities. They will be well respected Canadians, I am certain. They will require the approval of the Leaders of the Parties in the House of Commons, so there is significant accountability in this Bill.
I for one am happy that, after some five years, we will have another look at this Bill. Others will do that because I will not be here. They will look at whether it has worked. They will look to see if there have been any infringements of or intrusions into the civil liberties of Canadians. I do not think we have to quote other individuals to tell us whether this Bill is good or bad. I think we are hired and retained by our
4816

June 19, 1984
Time Allocation
constituents to come here and look at legislation. What Members opposite, particularly those in the New Democratic Party, do not recognize is that Bills are gone over and over again at the caucus stage before they see the light of day. We have long, serious and sometimes it might be called great debate before a Bill sees the light of day. This lets us do all that is possible to apply the necessary delicate balance to the necessity for having a security service and yet not encroaching upon the civil liberties of Canadians, at least beyond that provided for in the Bill. As well, the committee can say to the security service: "You are accountable to us and we will be reporting to Parliament".
Bill C-9 is a good Bill. It is sad that we had to use time allocations, but frankly, there was no other way to get this Bill through given the farce presented by the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am truly glad to lend my voice of opposition to this procedure which the Government has imposed upon Parliament, namely closure on an important Bill. I think every Member of this House should be opposing this motion for closure. As voiced by other Members, this Bill is not a normal Bill. It is not a usual bill of administration, of economics, social services, or any of the other millions of things with which this House is concerned. Bill C-9 concerns the rights, the privacy and the freedoms of Canadian citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Earlier on in the term I have been here, this Government introduced civil liberties legislation and enshrined it in the Constitution. The Liberals were very pleased with themselves. This same Government is now ignoring all of those civil liberties which they enshrined in the Constitution. They are bringing before the House a Bill that will restrict those liberties.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Vincent Martin Dantzer: I find it very difficult to understand that kind of thing happening. Normally people on the Government side of the House are pretty rational, but several times in the past four or five years they have thrown away all good judgment and imposed this type of thing on Parliament. If I were their leader, I would be very unhappy to be, I suppose, catalogued for the rest of a short career as the leader of the Liberal Party who imposed closure on a Bill which restricted the rights, liberties and freedoms of Canadians. If that man is not Mr. Yesterday, I do not know who is.
Earlier a Member talked about the committee system and how this Government tried to improve it. This legislation was first before a committee in the other place, before many commissions, and was examined in long hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It is precisely because of the way the Liberals have used that committee system that we on this side are so upset. The Government has received representations right across the country from very
august groups, universities, church groups and civil liberties groups. The Government has paid absolutely no attention to those representations.
This set of circumstances reminds me very much of the committee hearings on the National Energy Program. That particular committee sat longer than the committee that considered Bill C-9 and it heard more witnesses. Every witness- and I say every witness-who appeared before the committee concerned with the National Energy Program opposed the legislation and found fault with it. But what did this Government do? It did not accept one recommendation of the committee. If you want to know the history of the National Energy Program, Mr. Speaker, which turned into an economic disaster, I would ask you to read the projections made by the witnesses in those committee hearings as well as the reports which outlined in detail the effect of that legislation. The Government paid no attention to them.
This same thing is happening with Bill C-9. The Government heard representations in the committee hearings. The Government listened to briefs. But the Government has not acted. Why do we have a committee system if the Government intends to impose legislation on Parliament? Why waste the time of so many people? If people are not listened to, it is frustrating to those both inside and outside Parliament. Also people who have taken the time and made the effort to present their expertise before a committee will think that the democratic process is poor because they realize they are not going to be listened to. That is why we on this side of the House are so opposed to this kind of procedure.
A Member opposite said the Conservative Party opposed this legislation because control of the new service was not within the RCMP. That is true, but that does not go far enough in our view. That is one of our proposals. Basically the real opposition we have to this Bill concerns the definition found in Clause 2. Clause 2 gives this super-snooper outfit the power to permit an agent or agents to enter people's homes and destroy property. In fact, innocent people can have their whole way of life upset by this legislation. This is because the definition section is too wide.
A previous speaker said that the Government has tried to create a balance. The Minister many times in committee admitted that Clause 2 was perhaps too wide and was open to abuse by a secret service force. He said: "I cannot draft the legislation. I cannot find the right balance. We find it impossible. The best draftsman have tried to do what we want but it could not be done." That is because the Minister is trying to give the secret service super-snoopers wide enough scope that they can solve every single problem or every single threat, no matter how small.
We tried to impress upon the Minister time and time again in committee that instead of giving the super-snoopers a Lincoln or a Chevrolet with which to do their work, make it difficult for them. If this agency over the next four or five years finds that it cannot do its work properly, there is provision for the law to be brought back to Parliament to be rewritten. It would be far better for the secret service to come
June 19, 1984

back to Parliament and say that the Bill is not wide enough, that it does not give them enough power to do their work. We should be shown specific instances, which has not been done to this day, and 1 am sure Parliament would respond and say: "Fine, we will widen your mandate and give you power to solve this real threat about which you now tell us". It is far better for the security service to come back to Parliament than the average Canadian citizen who has had his rights run into the ground and who has suffered at the hands of some overzealous secret police. You know how difficult it is, Mr. Speaker, for any individual to do that. It would take years. I say this Bill puts the onus on the citizen to protect his rights. It gives all the privilege to the secret service police.
I am sure it will be echoed in this House, it will certainly be echoed in the country, that there is an obligation on the Government to ensure that the Canadian citizen is protected, that his privacy is protected. This Government has not done so in this Bill. Therefore, I am opposed to this high-handed, guillotine-like procedure of closure. I hope the Government will have time in the next day or so to reconsider and open up this matter. Surely the matter is much too important to rush into at this time.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of observations concerning the procedure today. I remind the House that the subject matter or the intent of this particular Bill was dealt with by two royal commissions in the past two decades. Substantially they recommended what the Bill provides. The committee has been studying it for about two months. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) spent many hours before the committee. Some 25 or 26 individuals and organizations made representations to the committee. I understand that there were more than 50 speeches at second reading. It was the subject of a very valuable Senate report. Some of the very worth-while recommendations of the Senate committee were incorporated into this Bill.
The subject matter under discussion today is closure. It is interesting to listen to Hon. Members talk about closure. They say that somehow the rights of Canadians are being denied by closure. One wonders just how the time of the House of Commons is used throughout the year. We could look at a situation where an entire year was spent in this Chamber dealing with very few Bills. Very few Bills ever see the light of day out the other end.
If I were to suggest that we bring in a parliamentary rule change providing that every motion put would come to an automatic end at the end of the day on which it was put, I would be accused of putting Parliament to rest or taking away all its rights. That would be absolutely outrageous to Hon. Members, but it is the exact change which has been implemented in most legislatures under the British parliamentary system. The motion is put and it comes to an end in one sitting day. That would be absolutely outrageous to us as parliamentarians in Canada. That is the system which is the effect in our
Time Allocation
Mother of Parliaments. The reason for it is that legislatures under the British parliamentary system, except the Canadian Parliament, eventually decided that they would go along with changes in parliamentary procedure not made by Members of Parliament. In effect, in Britain today there is an outside committee which is not connected with Members of Parliament. It brings in recommendations for rule changes in that Parliament.
Unless similar action is taken in terms of our Canadian Parliament, I am afraid that we will not keep up with the times in trying to deal with the many issues facing the country.
I am referring to the many issues with which Parliament never deals because there is no chance and the mechanisms are not in place.
I could outline what has happened to committee structures in legislatures throughout the British parliamentary system. I could outline what happens during Question Period and every other part of a day's sitting. I could outline what happens when motions are brought before those chambers. We would see that their procedures differ vastly from what is in effect in the Canadian Parliament. When we question the people who brought in these changes in other legislatures, they indicate that we are back in the dark ages and they wonder how we can function. Somehow there is always an attitude in our Parliament that unless we keep things the same, we lose a part of our democracy in this Chamber.
The only point I wanted to make today was that our parliamentary system is quite different from that of other Parliaments under the British parliamentary system. To say that closure is an outrageous act by government to shut off debate, to another Parliament would in itself be an outrageous statement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a few comments by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). Clearly he is a man who is so oblivious to what has happened in our Parliament that he does not even know that we have undergone very substantial changes to our rules with respect to the way in which we conduct our business. Somehow or other he talked about a Parliament which existed years ago. He does not know that the Government is now seized with the current Standing Orders, which were introduced in the House as a result of the work of a committee on which I had the privilege of serving, that put limits on the length of speeches and now make it virtually impossible for anything in the nature of a filibuster to occur in the House. Apparently the Hon. Member is oblivious to what has gone on in this House. If he were telling the complete truth and were fully informed, he would have to admit that under the new rules the Government has the hammer as far as legislation is concerned.
He talked about the United Kingdom and the Mother of Parliaments. He is the only Liberal I have heard speak approvingly about the Mother of Parliaments. Under his Government everything possible has been done to separate us from our relationship with the United Kingdom and the Mother of Parliaments.

June 19, 1984
Time Allocation
At least I give him credit for looking there for some precedent. However, he forgot to mention the fact that the United Kingdom is a country which does not have a separate provincial jurisdiction. It deals with legislation which is covered by our provincial legislatures as well as by our federal jurisdiction in Canada. Its workload is quite different, its scope is quite different and its rules are quite different. It is modelled upon their own experience. We in Canada have a system which is adapting and in fact reflects regional disparities. At least some of us in the House think that individual Members of Parliament should have a role to play with respect to the important issues facing Canada.
I should like to talk about the kind of approach we should take to this legislation. I should like to quote, because the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is wont to do so, the McDonald Commission. Section 28 on page 15 of its second report, Volume I, dated August, 1981 is headed: "The need for trust". It reads:
The most important word in the Commission governing this Inquiry is "trust". No police force protecting the peace can be effective unless it has the trust of the people it seeks to protect; no security intelligence agency can be effective without the trust of citizens. Moreover, neither can be effective without the trust of government.
That is what we are talking about. We are talking about trust. We are talking about a Government Party which has just gone through a convention in which the word "reform" was used liberally, if I may put it that way. Its members indicated that there would be parliamentary reform and that their new Leader would ensure Parliament was relevant. What was the first thing they did after the election of a new Leader? They brought in John Turner's chief operative on the floor-I saw him on television in black and white-and he came into Parliament and gave notice of closure. If that is their idea of parliamentary reform, God protect the people of Canada.
Let me put the facts before you, Mr. Speaker. They are simply this. We were involved, by virtue of a ruling by Your Honour, in a procedural debate on the admissibility of motions to amend at report stage until the day before yesterday. Finally these matters were resolved. Only yesterday we made our final procedural argument. I venture to say that at report stage, forced as we are with a great number of suggested amendments, we have had something in the vicinity of five or six hours' debate on this Bill.
This Bill does not involve some kind of contract for snow clearing in Sarnia. It is not a minor Bill. This Bill will have a very serious impact on the civil liberties of Canadians. It will create an agency with enormous powers. To use the words of the McDonald Commission, this agency will not be able to function properly unless it has the trust of the people of Canada. It will not operate unless the citizens of Canada have trust in the Government of this country.
When talking about curtailing civil liberties, is it consistent with the concept that we have of a government moving the weight of its majority in this House in a dying Parliament, in the dying days when this Government has no mandate, when
its new Leader is talking about an immediate election, that one of its final acts is to curtail debate without any consideration of reasonable amendments? It says it is not going to listen to the representations, that it will not listen to those who came before the committee, will not listen to the advice of the provincial Attorneys General and will not listen to the advice of representatives of church groups, public interest groups and civil liberties groups.
Worst of all, what the Government is saying by this motion is that it cares not a whit what Members of Parliament say with regard to this legislation. The Government does not want to hear any more, does not want further discussion, even though it knows that its mandate has expired. It is exhausted. It is going to push this Bill through whether the people of Canada like it or not. That is what is at issue.
I am not so completely partisan that I am not impressed by my colleagues. I realize that no Party has a corner on people of goodwill and good spirit, that there are people of that type in every party in Canada. I listened with care to what was going on with the new Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. John turner. He has had experience in this House. He left the Government of Canada for his own reasons and now has come back. I heard him talk about the new approach, the new spirit of civility that he wants to bring to the Parliament of Canada. The first act that takes place after he has been elected is the heavy cloud of closure which is now being presented to the House of Commons. This is a very foreboding development.
If we cannot discuss issues, if we cannot have a perspective in terms of the issues before us in this debate, if we cannot, as the McDonald Commission said, instil a feeling of trust with respect to the fact that there are to be some reasonable rules governing the control of this agency, if we are to enter this experience in terms of our own security, having an intelligence service which will not be under the discipline of the RCMP, if we do not have a fine and honourable tradition to guide it in its operations, its deliberations and its accountability, our country will be in a sorry state indeed.
I say with all the emotion I am capable of that I resent the cynicism with which this motion has been brought forward. I resent the attempt at this time in the life of our Parliament to throttle free discussion of a Bill which involves the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. It brings into being a service, Mr. Speaker, that will have access not only to your tax returns and mine, but to those of all Canadians across this country. It will have the ability to go into medical records, to put intrusive devices in our homes in order to gain information which can be a valuable tool in the hands of an unscrupulous government. When closure is being brought forward on this legislation, those who watch these proceedings or read them will be left wondering. They must ask themselves, why do they stay? They must echo the words of Oliver Cromwell: "In the name of God, go!" I say to the Government of Canada that that sentiment is appropriate with this dying Government.
June 19, 1984



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Shellenberger)-Crown Corporations (a) Northern Transportation Company Limited- Proposed sale of company (b) Cash assets of company; the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan)-Energy (a) Prince Edward Island energy costs-Government policy (b) Impact of National Energy Program; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-National Defence (a) Military accidents-Release of inquiry transcripts (b) Names of inquest witnesses.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan:
That in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact An Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof in relation thereto, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stages and the third reading of the said Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I guess I see myself as still being relatively new in this House in the sense that I was first elected in 1979. I have just served five years as a Member of Parliament. After having lived through the constitutional process, having lived through times in which time allocation and closure was imposed on this House, I can understand why early framers who looked at the American Constitution with its congressional form have said that it is the perfect form of government. The individual elected there is held accountable on a non-partisan basis to his or her constituents. I am convinced that unless we can radically reform this place to the point where there are genuine free votes which will impose an individual responsibility on each of us, on every piece of legislation, to look at that legislation, to vote as our constituents and our conscience dictate, we will continue to have the parliamentary form of government where a cabinet, in conjunction with a very well educated and powerful bureaucracy, will make decisions that it can force through this House because if back-benchers, however well
Time Allocation
intentioned they may be, vote against the government, they will bring on a general election.
I am convinced that as a result of all the complexity of government, the volume of government as well as the legislation that is necessary, the system has broken down. Either we have radical changes within our responsible parliamentary forum or we move to a congressional forum where the executive would be isolated off to the side and charged with administering the laws. Then the House with its Party system, where there would be cross-representation depending on the issue, would be much more responsible to the people.
I have just read some poll data on this Bill. Over 80 per cent of the Canadian people have indicated they would like to have the security service remain with the RCMP. Yet the Cabinet and the bureaucracy, for very good reasons that they generated in their own minds which are logical and rational to themselves, are going to foist their view on the people. That is not satisfactory and we must return to a better system.
Twenty-five witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and gave well-meaning and valuable evidence. In a sense, these witnesses were the experts. When members of the Canadian Bar Association speak, we should listen to them. When members of the Canadian Jewish Council speak on a Bill that deals with individual liberties and freedoms, surely the people who hear their words should give them enormous weight. There is no doubt that if you were a judge, Mr. Speaker, who heard the evidence that came before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, you would not have hesitated at all in accepting the recommendations for amendments. Yet this just has not happened. Therefore, our system has fallen down.
If an individual who worked for this new civilian intelligence service had reasonable grounds to suspect that you, Mr. Speaker, were a threat to the security of Canada, then your mail could be opened, your medical records could be seized, your legal records could be seized, your tax files could be searched, your home, office or car could be bugged and searched overtly or covertly, your telephones could be tapped and your doctor's or psychiatrist's offices could be searched. All that remains confidential is your five-year or ten-year census records. Everything else can be stripped and investigated. For one year you could have intrusive devices placed on your person and your telephones could be tapped, and after that year it could go on for a further year and yet another year. That flies in the face of those fundamental freedoms that our ancestors came to this country to achieve.
Our ancestors did not cross the ocean on boats, stand at the corner of a quarter section of land containing only rough prairie and trees, give their lives cutting trees, breaking land and living in sod huts simply to pass the time of day. They did all of that because they came from jurisdictions in which they felt oppressed. Often times they felt oppressed because of the economic situation of a country or because of the laws of a

June 19, 1984
Time Allocation
country. In most cases they felt oppressed by their country's government of the day.
I would say to the Government of this country that with this legislation we are creating a real possibility and perhaps even a probability that at some future time this new civilian security agency will become oppressive to our own people. Clause 2(d) defines threats to the security of Canada and deals with subversion. Subversion means actions taken by our own citizens.
None of us has any trouble at all with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 2 which deal with the actions of KGB agents and people who come to Canada to hijack airplanes and blow things up on behalf of other countries. Clause 2(d) deals with our own Canadian citizens and therefore should be drafted in an extremely narrow fashion. If such a narrow definition does not work in the future, then the agency could return to a future Parliament which would gladly decide, based upon actual cases, to expand that definition so that the proper delicate balance is achieved.
The present wording of Clause 2(d) gives such a wide mandate to the Bill that many of our people will have to suffer dramatically before the definition will be narrowed. That means that those people who are affected will then be required to hire a solicitor, if they happen to find out that they are being investigated. These people may not be able to get jobs and will never find out why they could not get jobs. They may lose their jobs and never know the real reason why. They may not be able to get passports or be bonded and never know the reason. All this because this clause has been cast too widely. That is why I say we must begin with a narrow definition and let future generations widen it based upon experience.
I wish Government Members would take another look at Clause 2(d) because it is never too late to do so. Without expanding the size of the Minister's head, I would say that I believe the Minister wants to be reasonable and, in many respects, is a reasonable man. As I listened to the Minister's speech, when he got right down to it he pointed out that the reason for the imposition of time allocation is that we are nearing the end of a session. When dealing with a statute that will have influence on future generations, saying that we are nearing the end of a session is simply not a good enough reason for imposing time allocation. A future Parliament could deal with this legislation.
If we had the time, we could improve this legislation. I found that when given the opportunity at committee, Government Members were prepared to sit down and discuss this legislation. Indeed, they themselves proposed some amendments. If we could just discuss the legislation with them further and hear more witnesses, we could get it right.
I would like to be critical of members of the NDP as well because at the beginning of the process they were so radical that they polarized the Government to the point that reasonableness and common sense could not prevail. That is not what I was elected to accomplish. My people sent me here to do a job, to look at legislation and to rise and speak on their behalf. I show you a questionnaire, Mr. Speaker, which asks: "Are
you satisfied with the RCMP performance on matters of national security intelligence?" Of the respondents to that questionnaire, 71 per cent said yes and only 8 per cent said no. Surely we should listen to what the answer to that questionnaire is telling us.
I know that my friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), has an absolutely incredible and revolutionary idea. He believes that elected representatives should do what the people want. That is not the way the Liberal Government has operated. However, that is his view and that is my view as well. It is a view to which I wish we would all adhere.
[ Translation\


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak to the motion on time allocation for the debate on Bill C-9.
This afternoon we have heard a lot from the Opposition, and the gist of it seems to be that these Hon. Members who represent the Canadian people have not had a chance to consider all the whys and wherefores of this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have been Parliamentary Secretary since March and have attended all the meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which dealt with this Bill. I must say there were times when we were almost ashamed to admit we were Members of Parliament and were sitting opposite certain Members of the New Democratic Party who were using every trick in the book-and I am referring to the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-and I am sure they would have found a few new ones if they had had more time, to set up a regular filibuster. In fact, that is more or less what the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) said, and I would refer you to Hansard of June 12, 1984, at page 4568, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I rise with some sadness at report stage of this Bill because we are again faced with a situation in which NDP members are helping the Government achieve one of its goals while loudly protesting what the Government is doing. NDP members are actually helping the Government because they are going to force the Government to put time allocation on report stage and third reading stage-
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that in Canada, security is an issue that has been discussed for many years.
Commissioners Mackenzie, Pratt and Coldwell reported to the Government in October 1968, and the Commission's report was published in June of the following year. In the course of their inquiry, they heard about 250 witnesses, including Ministers and former Ministers of the Crown, public servants and retired public servants, private citizens and representatives of public sector organizations. They examined numerous files and documents, received briefs and papers and consulted public information sources. Their report was well received by a very large audience.
June 19, 1984

The work of the McDonald Commission, created in July 1977, consisted in the most thorough examination of security intelligence issues and procedures ever carried out in Canada's history, or in the history of any nation, for that matter.
Commissioners McDonald, Rickerd and Gilbert were assisted by an exceptionally competent staff of seven full-time investigators, thirty lawyers and sixty research officers. In the course of an inquiry that lasted four years, the Commission held 169 public hearings and 144 hearings behind closed doors. The combined transcripts of these hearings filled 174 volumes. As many as 149 witnesses were heard. More than 805 exhibits were received. The Commission investigated 292 allegations and examined 124 papers on national security policies, procedures and legislation.
In addition to hearings held in Ottawa, the Commissioners travelled throughout the country to receive briefs from the Canadian public, and I am surprised there are still Hon. Members who say today that Canadians have never had a chance to give their views on the subject. Especially since, in addition to the trips made by the McDonald Commission and our committee meetings, the Chairman published notices in forty newspapers across Canada, so that individual Canadians or groups would have an opportunity to testify before our Committee or submit written representations. In fact a number of groups and a number of individuals were able to testify. I shall get back to this later on.
The Commissioners of the McDonald Commission also met with Ministers, Members of Parliament and senior federal and provincial officials. Their research covered more than 500 books, articles and reports on the subject. They produced three reports, the second about 1,200 pages long and containing 285 recommendations. Therefore, I am indeed surprised to hear Hon. Members saying that the issue of security in Canada has not been examined. Strange as it may seem, the Opposition Parties often quote the McDonald Report, but only when it suits them.
While the McDonald Report speaks for itself, and I think that the Government, and we shall see later on . .. I read somewhere the following opinion given by Professor Peter Russell with respect to Bill C-9: "It is a pretty good Bill. I cannot think in living memory of legislation coming as close to a Royal Commission's whole set of recommendations as C-9 now does". Professor Russell concluded with: "Let's get on with the job" . . . and a subtle recommendation for approval or enactment of Bill C-9.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, last year Bill C-157 was tabled, and at the time it gave rise to some serious questions by groups and individuals. Bill C-157 was referred to a Special Committee of the Senate, and I might refer the House to a statement by Mr. W. A. Wilson ... If the Hon. Member for Burnaby insists, I am quite willing to table the document! In an article published on June 2, 1984, and I cannot quite read the name of the newspaper, Mr. Wilson said that the report of the
Time Allocation
Senate Committee chaired by Senator Michael Pitfield was one of the best reports ever produced here in the Senate and that the Senate had every reason to be proud of producing such a document.
The Senate Committee heard more than thirty individuals and groups, and received more than fifty representations or letters. Last January, realizing that Bill C-157 was raising serious questions, the Government, through the Solicitor General, tabled an amended version of Bill C-157, now known as Bill C-9. The new Bill C-9 contained forty amendments made by the Government. Subsequently, at the committee stage, the Government added seven more amendments. When we proceeded with clause-by-clause consideration, the Government accepted several amendments which, although minor, helped to improve considerably the original version of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that today, we have a motion for time allocation because Opposition Members, and the New Democratic Party led the way in this respect, have given us no other alternative but to ask the House to limit debate. At the second reading stage, we had six days of debate and fifty-seven speeches. The Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs met for two months. In those months we had forty-three meetings and eighty-five hours of debate. We heard twenty-five individuals and groups, we received fifty written representations, and the Solicitor General attended the proceedings of the Committee for fifty-nine hours at twenty-four different meetings. If, after all that, no consensus could be reached in Committee or in the House, I think that even if we continued debate for many hours and many days, we would never get anything more substantial from the New Democratic Party, the NDP, also known as the Non-Decision Party, a party that has a habit of talking instead of making decisions. We had a taste of that in committee! The Hon. Member for Burnaby talked for hours on end to try and hold up committee proceedings.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice- these will be my last words-but to move the motion for time allocation, and that is why I support the motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has attacked the NDP as leading the opposition to this Bill. On behalf of the NDP, I proudly stand here to add to that opposition. It is a proud tradition. In this House, NDP Members have stood against the tidal wave of public opinion to oppose the taking away of the property of Japanese Canadians. We stood against the War Measures Act and we stand against this Bill. I believe that history will prove us right as it has proven us right in the past.
The Parliamentary Secretary is missing the point. The point is not that security in Canada has not been debated. Of course it has been debated. It has been debated for a long time. Canadians may get tired of the debate, but it is a tough debate and it is a tough decision. Yes, we had the McDonald Commission, but that is not the point. We are dealing with this Bill and we should focus on it. This Bill is a flawed Bill. It must be

June 19, 1984
Time Allocation
corrected because this subject is too important. This is one of the most important subjects which the Elouse has tackled in this Parliament since 1980.
I can recall the debate on the Alaska pipeline. Closure was moved on that Bill. I can recall the debate on the Constitution and the debate on the National Energy Program. This Bill ranks with those kinds of fundamental debates and fundamental decisions which will affect the future of Canada. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that this Government should now bring in that Bill, which is a seriously flawed product of a lame duck regime.
I have heard Hon. Members bringing John Turner into the debate this afternoon and in a way, criticizing him, for this Bill. I would exclude that criticism. We are dealing with the Trudeau Government, and we are dealing with a lame duck government, which has no right to bring in this seriously flawed legislation at the end of a session, because this legislation is going to have such an incredible effect on the country. I say it is a Trudeau Bill because it bears all the earmarks of the Trudeau-Pitfield elitist form of bureaucracy. It creates a small security service which will not be accountable to Parliament or to anyone. I predict it will get out of control. The problem with Revenue Canada will be nothing compared to what is going to happen here. The political masters will not be able to control this service. This represents the kind of elitist centralized small bureaucratic thinking which was the great flaw of the Trudeau-Pitfield years. We are seeing that in spades in this Bill.
It is unbelievable that Liberal Members should support this kind of flawed legislation at the dying end of a session. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that they should call an election on this legislation and that we leave the Bill right where it is. Let them leave the Bill now and go out to seek a mandate. If they get one, let them come back and then we can start off from where we are right now. We will get agreement from the other Party. I suggest that to the Solicitor General and I challenge the Liberals to do that. But they will not do it. They would prefer to hurry this Bill through Parliament.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who is to be congratulated for his great work on this Bill, and the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), who spoke today, gave two of the best speeches I have heard since I came to the House of Commons. They were hard hitting speeches which took to task the national press for its coverage of this Bill. That is a hard thing to do for a Member of Parliament, but it was the right thing to do, because the Canadian people are asleep right now and the press is asleep in letting this kind of Bill go through. There is an exception, Mr. Speaker, and that is The Vancouver Sun who published an editorial. The Toronto Star, for example, said the Government should push the Bill through, "You heard 25 witnesses or so. Push the Bill through". But it forgot to say that most of those witnesses were against the Bill and that the Bill was seriously flawed. I will quote from the editorial in The Vancouver sun. It reads:
But the opposition parties must fight tooth and nail to prevent the government from ramming through its security and intelligence legislation-
Well, we are fighting tooth and nail. The editorial continues:
It is not just civil liberties groups that have condemned the legislation. Doctors and lawyers, labour and religious organizations, provincial attomeys-general and, yes, even some Liberal MPs have serious misgivings about it.
The language of the bill is simply too broad and loose to assure Canadians that their fundamental rights and liberties would not be infringed by the new civilian security agency.
It is not just outside sources like The Vancouver Sun which say that. Roy McMurtry, the Attorney General of Ontario, is quoted as saying:
It is critical in developing laws to protect our freedoms that we do not by these very laws destroy the very freedoms that they are meant to secure.
This law will destroy those freedoms. I suggest that Hon. Members opposite should seriously consider whether they should vote for this Bill. They should not be muttons or sheep, as they have been called. I suggest that those Hon. Members look at Issue No. 16 of the committee report. The Hon. Member for Burnaby asked Mr. Stewart, who lead a group from Vancouver, this:
What effect do you think that would have on the nature of dissent and certainly on the activities of the groups you represent?
He was referring to closure on the Bill and bringing this Bill through right away. Mr. Stewart answered:
I think it would have a couple. It would make some people quite cautious about what they did. You see, when you leave a tinge of suspicion in people's minds ... We all know the police never investigate anyone without cause; that is drilled into us at school and is certainly confirmed in every day experience for a lot of people. If that general public view is maintained and we see that the Bill as it is presently written makes its way through the House, I think it will have a real sensory effect on a lot of activity.
In other words, it will stop dissent, legal dissent, in this country. Mr. Stewart continued:
That is one thing that will happen. It is going to make a lot of people very angry. It is going to make things much worse than they presently are, I believe. If people believe normal activities of dissidents, of protest in this country, are being closed down, I believe some people will be more likely to use alternative methods.
And we will see more of the Squamish Five, and that nonsense rather than less, if we pass this kind of a police state type of Bill. Mr. Stewart continued, and I will quote it in French for the Parliamentary Secretary:
Le resultat, comme le donne a entendre notre memoire, c'est la fin du regime democratique au pays. Cela aurait pour effet que la police chargee d'assurer notre securite deviendrait, a la fin du compte, des gardiens de prison.
I will repeat it in English. He said:
What that does in the end as our brief suggests, is close down democracy in this country. That would be the net effect; that these police who are here to look after our security would, in the end, become our jailers.
I think Mr. Stewart put it very well. The Hon. Member for Burnaby said in his speech that this Bill is unprecedented, that it gives new powers to the police to open first class mail. Do Liberal Members of Parliament want that? Do their constituents want that? It gives access to medical records. Is that what those Hon. Members want? Do Canadians want that? Do they want to give access to their medical records? It gives access to income tax returns. Do Hon. Members in this House and the
June 19, 1984

people watching want to see this happen? It allows people to target Canadians who have broken no law at all. The definition clause, Mr. Speaker, will make it easy to go after legitimate groups who voice their dissent.
I believe the Government, in sneaking this legislation through, thinks that the people do not care. I was at a pot luck supper in Vancouver last weekend. A woman stood up and said that we need to support Svend Robinson on this Bill, and some people wrote on the tablecloth about stopping the Bill. I went to the Maritimes and people asked me questions there about this Bill. They asked, "Are they taking away our liberties?"
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying this: This is a flawed Bill, for all the reasons which other Hon. Members have given. The Government is pushing this Bill through and accepting no amendments. Let the Government accept some amendments to the Bill. Many of us in this House, Mr. Speaker, have spent our lives fighting for civil liberties, for law in this country, and now we see a Bill that in fact attacks what is the nature of Canada itself. There is an ink blot, Mr. Speaker, on the Charter of Rights. It is a small blot, an act of some crazy person. But this Bill, if it passes, will do something worse. I feel that in the end it will kill the spirit and the letter of that Charter of Rights. The Liberal Members, the people of this country and the press, would be wise to take another look at this Bill before hurrying it through.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks on Bill C-9, which establishes the Canadian Security Intelligence Services, by referring to two matters which I believe are vital to this debate. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, is the survival of the Canadian parliamentary democracy and the vital effect it has on our society, both in political terms and in real terms for the Canadian people. Second, I want to speak about the status of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as Canada's national police force, and how it is affected by Bill C-9 and this process to which Bill C-9 has been subjected.
Let me say first, with respect to parliamentary democracy, that the purpose of having elected representatives and the whole idea being a parliamentary democracy is to invoke an evolutionary process in order to establish the laws by which Canadians are governed. That evolutionary process is designed to prevent and preclude the development of a revolutionary process. It is interesting to note that the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), referred to what may be a revolt on the part of the Canadian people with respect to a legislative measure such as that contained in Bill C-9. We are denying the parliamentary democracy which was established for Canadians over 100 years ago by taking the steps in this House of Commons which are being taken by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and his colleagues in the Government and in the Liberal Party. We are denying the opportunity for that evolutionary process to go through whereby we establish to everyone's satisfaction that a legislative measure brought to Parliament has the support of the Canadian people. That is the end test.
Time Allocation
I agreed with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, for once in our political lives, when he said, "If the Government is so sure of its position on this matter, let it be tested by the people". Let us go before the people and ask them whether they want Bill C-9 passed. Let them decide whether they want Bill C-9 passed. Let them decide whether they want a Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the form which is proposed in this Bill. But that is not what the Government wants, Mr. Speaker. That is not why it is rushing this Bill through the House of Commons, to get it stamped with the approval of Parliament so it can be a fait accompli before the Canadian people even get to realize and recognize what is part and parcel of the provisions of Bill C-9. The Government wants to put this dramatic and drastic change in our national police force behind it before government Members have to face the Canadian people. Unfortunately, they know that the public's memory is short. If the Bill can be enacted and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service created and put into operation, it may be forgotten. There will be complaints across Canada from a great many people but there will be no widespread movement against the action taken by the Government. The public will not blame the Government of Canada.
The Liberal Party has just gone through a dramatic national convention at which all the candidates, particularly the successful candidate, spoke of the need to reform the institutions of Parliament and Government. What a mockery! They talk about reform and then come into the House of Commons and clamp closure on such an important legislative measure. I cannot believe this was done without the consent and concurrence of the future Prime Minister, Mr. Turner. I cannot believe that the Solicitor General would introduce a drastic measure without consulting with the future Prime Minister. Let us make it very clear. We are casting the blame on the future Prime Minister, Mr. Turner, for this Bill. He will be the J. R. Ewing of Canadian politics. He will be the backroom schemer who directed that these actions take place and then, when the deed is done, he will come into the House and deny any knowledge or participation in that deed. But he is not going to fool anyone because it is now on record. We know that the actions of the Solicitor General must have the consent and concurrence of the future Prime Minister or we will not see the Solicitor General sitting where he now sits. We are not going to let Mr. Turner forget this measure. We are not going to let him pretend it was done by someone else at some other time. It demonstrates very effectively and for the record what Mr. Turner's attitude is toward parliamentary reform and reform of the Canadian institutions he regards as vital.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that history will regard the past 16 years as the Trudeau era. Among other things it will be marked in the eyes of the public by the downfall of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Do not kid yourself, the RCMP is not the national force it was 20 years ago. It does not have the high regard of the Canadian people. One of the difficulties is the government Party's representation across Canada. The RCMP are the police force in some provinces of Canada, but

June 19, 1984
Time Allocation
not in others. It is not difficult to determine where the RCMP operate as the provincial force and where Liberal members have constituencies. In the Province of British Columbia, where the RCMP operate as the provincial force, there are no Liberal members. The same thing is true in Alberta. In Saskatchewan it is the same thing, there are no Liberal members. There are two Liberal members in Manitoba where the RCMP are the provincial police force. Then we come to Ontario and Quebec where there is a very substantial membership in the Liberal Party but the RCMP are not the police force. Then of course in each of the maritime Provinces RCMP operate as the provincial force. The fact is that the majority of Liberal Members in this House is not familiar with the RCMP. It is not the provincial force in their province-


Mr. Evans:: What absolute nonsense.


Howard Edward Crosby: -so they do not mind denigrating and degrading that institution. That is what they are doing in this Bill.


John Leslie Evans: Do you like the sound of your own voice?


Howard Edward Crosby: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) speaks out again when he knows nothing about the subject. I challenge him to compare his knowledge of the RCMP with mine.


John Leslie Evans: You sat there in committee every day, didn't you?


Howard Edward Crosby: We have talked about the RCMP and the opinion that Canadians now have of that force. What about Clifford Olsen and the money paid to find his victims? Then there is David Shearing. They could not find the murderer of three generations of one family even though he lived 300 yards from the scene of the crime. Noel Winters pleaded guilty to two murders while another two victims lay within yards of his house but were not found until after the case was completed and he was in jail and had confessed to the murder.


John Leslie Evans: Who are you blaming that on?


Howard Edward Crosby: That is the kind of police activity that scares Canadians. We have to take another look at the RCMP. We have to provide them with more facilities and better support so they can do the job they are required to do under provincial laws. But what does the Government do? It erodes the status of the RCMP by taking away one of their vital functions. What does the Government want to provide in place of the RCMP, a national institutions which has been in operation since this country began? It wants to develop a spy network. As the newspaper says, the Government is going out and hiring spies.
The Solicitor General said that the RCMP must operate on a cost recovery basis in all the provinces. That is a direct encouragement to the provinces to form their own police forces and destroy the RCMP. I can tell the Solicitor General that his Security Intelligence Service is not going to work. He will recruit the worst kind of operative and the people of Canada will have to pay for his errors.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in this closure debate. I am not blaming it on the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); I am blaming it on the future Prime Minister. If he is going to be the leader, he should be the leader. I have no doubt in my mind that this closure is his doing. Otherwise the Solicitor General would not have brought it in. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) blamed it all on the Trudeau-Pitfield group. They talked about reform at the national convention, but it is the same old group. They introduced closure again so that the people will not know the facts. When will the Government ever learn? It introduced closure on the National Energy Program and destroyed an industry in western Canada. It introduced closure on the Crow Bill and destroyed the farming industry. It ruined the cattle and hog and the processing industries. Then the Members opposite stand up as if they had done something wonderful. They have a celebration over the killing of the Crow. They did not kill the Crow, they just transferred it from western Canada into the boardroom of the CPR, and probably Mr. Turner had something to do with that. The CPR is getting all the benefits, the shortfall and the increased freight rates. It is getting everything, and who is paying? The farmers of western Canada. Members opposite can smile if they like, but the farmers of western Canada are not going to elect a director of the CPR as the Prime Minister of Canada, I will tell you that.
I want to say a few things also about reform. When the Members opposite talk about reform they mean deform. That is what they are doing in this House. They are not reforming anything, they are deforming, defacing and destroying democracy. They are totalitarian in aspect and outlook. Democracy reflects the thinking of the people. The Members do what the people want. Is this Government doing what the people want? No! It ignored our amendments to the Crow Bill. It ignored the amendment to the NEP. One destroyed an industry and one is destroying an industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member but-


John Leslie Evans: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) is rising on a point of order.



John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the order of business to be considered at 6 p.m. will be continuation of the debate on time allocation.
June 19, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on the Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 14, 1984, the House will resume consideration of Government Orders.", 'June 19, 1984\nTime Allocation']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 96 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.


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



Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved: that Bill C-242, an Act to stabilize the representation in the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by referring briefly to the Bill itself. I would like to read into the record the two short amendments which are the subject of this Bill. There are only a couple of clauses in the Bill. Clause 2(1) reads:
This amendment would dispense with the necessity of a readjustment of federal electoral districts based upon the 1981 census. The most recent readjustment, based on the census of 1971, did not finally come into effect until the election of 1979. The adoption of a revised representation formula in the year 1974, after an initial readjustment had taken place, required the whole process to be repeated a second time. The amendment would spare the public from further confusion and expense on this account during the 1980s.
Clause 2(2) reads:
This amendment would maintain the size of the House of Commons at approximately its present strength. The relative representation of the various provinces is determined by a formula found in Rules 1 through 6 of section 51 in which one province, Quebec, serves as the reference point. Quebec's representation now stands at 75, but is to increase by four with each successive readjustment of electoral districts, producing a corresponding increase for other provinces through application of the formula, which takes into account relative populations among other factors.
By virtue of this arbitrary increment, it is estimated that the number of members will rise from 282 to over 300 at the next redistribution. However, if, as proposed by the Bill, the figure for Quebec were held constant at 75, the figures for the other provinces would also remain steady under the formula, unless their population grew at a rate significantly higher than Quebec's.
The amendment would leave intact the formula itself, which was arrived at after extended negotiations among members of all parties in Parliament. At the
Representation Act, 1984
same time, it would avert the expansion of the House of Commons to unwieldy proportions by the year 2001.
In preparing to discuss this Bill this afternoon I took the time to go back and look at my speech on a similar Bill, Bill C-276, which I introduced in this House in Private Members' Hour on July 23, 1982. I distilled the 20-minute speech I made at that time to a very few points. The point was made in debate that large ridings with twice the population of the average riding received only half the representation. I agrued then, as I would argue now, that large ridings, usually urban ridings obviously, because of the concentration of population and the growth in population following a census, received equally good representation from their Members as those ridings in Prince Edward Island, for example, where the total population of a constituency is perhaps 25,000 or 35,000 people.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) and his neighbour on the other side of the House, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) sometimes complain that they have difficulty in attending to all the mail and phone calls they get. I have a great deal of sympathy for that position. I suggest, however, that increasing the number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons is not the answer. There are a great many ways that the workload can be made easier for them. I will deal with some of them in a little while.
We only have to go south of the border to see that our counterparts there in the House of Representatives have an average of 400,000 people in each of their constituencies, while we have, on average, less than 100,000. I suggest to you that our constituents are not four times better served in Canada. I would make no comparison between the two. I am confident that our colleagues south of the border do their very best to serve their constituents as we do. The number of people in a constituency is not any reason at all to enlarge the House of Commons.
I also took some time to look at the speech given by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), on January 13, 1981 when he introduced a Bill not dissimilar to mine in intent, although there was some lack of similarity in the wording. Bill C-223 was finally referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections but unfortunately, despite the excellent arguments made by my colleague from Red Deer at that time, the Bill died there. I do not intend to go into detail on the arguments that were made by my colleague at that time. Not unreasonably, they dealt primarily with the way the Bill would affect western Canada. However good his arguments were, the committee, with a majority from the Government Party, allowed the Bill to die and no action was taken.
I could make the partisan argument which my friends on the government side of the House may well want to consider, that is, that leaving the membership of the House as it is how would be better for them than it would be for Members on this side of the House. If you were to follow the redistribution process and add, as is required now, four more seats to the

June 19, 1984
Representation Act, 1984
Province of Quebec, you would indeed add over 30 seats to other provinces, primarily Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Given the preponderence of the members of this political Party in those provinces, it would seem to me that any cautious Liberal Government would not want the membership of the House to increase since it would obviously stand to lose in an election. We could use that argument, but I do not think it is a particularly valid argument. I happen to think that in the next general election there may well be a major shift in the representation of our Party from Quebec and certainly a large increase in Ontario. If the Government Party wants to look at it that way, it may well want to support this Bill.
I intend to deal with what I perceive to be the need or, more correctly, the lack of need for the enlargement of the House of Commons. In legislation the House of Commons primarily reacts to the need of the population of Canada. In those instances where the Government has very rashly gone against the wishes of the electorate in general-instituting the metric system and doing away with capital punishment are two examples of this-there have been repeated requests by the population in all provinces to undo those measures. Those are two examples of which I can think where there was a general outcry from the public to take action. Where does anyone hear a general outcry by the public now to increase the number of Members of the House of Commons, to increase the spending that goes with it, to increase the bureaucracy and the office space and to increase the services and amenities? Where is the general outcry for that? I suggest that it is really not there.
Having said that, I want to interject one note. I have been a member of the Management and Members' Services Committee for some years. I know that you have sat on that committee from time to time, Mr. Speaker. However, I have sat there longer than any other Member, barring one, since its inception. I want to say that with a new administration in the House of Commons brought in by the previous Speaker, the increases in the House of Commons itself, as opposed to the increases in general government spending, have been very much in line. As a matter of fact, those increases have been kept to 5 per cent or less over the past few years at a time when other Departments have gone to 15 per cent and as high as 20 per cent increases. Even so, at the time when my colleague, the Hon. Member for Red Deer, was debating his Bill, the cost of the House of Commons stood at approximately $100 million. In 1984, the cost of the House of Commons has risen to $146 million. Surely there is no desire on anyone's part to increase that cost.
As you will be aware, we have introduced for the benefit of Members of Parliament a system that goes by the name of OASIS. That stands for Office Automation System and Information Services. That system, which in part could be brought on stream later this month, will be the finest electronic system in any legislature in the world when it is completed. I say that with a great deal of pride, having been part of the body that has worked on that system over the past few years.
Indeed, we have been consulted by members of other legislative bodies. Most recently there was a small group from the United Kingdom here to look at what we were doing. That system will allow present Members of Parliament to serve their constituency far better and easier than they have in the past, yet it will continue to provide Members with the background information that is necessary for them to serve in the House of Commons, perhaps to a greater degree than they presently are.
It seems to me that there is within the system the promise of the ability for all Members of Parliament to serve double and indeed triple the number of people whom they already serve. If this is the case, where is the justification for enlarging the House of Commons? There is no justification. There is no justification for the disruption caused by the changes in boundaries. We have all gone through them. While I do not say this to denigrate urban areas, we know that particularly in rural areas Members can drive down a country road and know every resident along that road. When the Government arbitrarily redistributes the boundary lines and sets out new areas so that people can participate in the next election, citizens become terribly upset. They have been used to dealing with a constituency. They are used to dealing with the people in the area. To have that changed is an unnecessary disruption.
Let me use my own constituency now and my former constituency prior to the redistribution as an example. Over the years, the people in Hastings County have obviously dealt with the City of Belleville as their county seat. They are used to listening to the radio from Belleville and watching television from that area. They are used to using the telephone book and newspapers emanating from Belleville. When the Government arbitrarily changed that and chopped Hastings into two ridings, they found themselves torn apart.
While my colleague, the Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet), does a good job of serving those people whom I previously served, nevertheless they do not relate to the town of Napanee. They do not read newspapers from the town of Napanee. They do not find the town of Napanee in the telephone book. There is a distinct confusion when this happens.
There is no justification for the disruption. There is no justification for the confusion, and certainly there is no justification for the expense that would follow a redistribution which would increase the number of Members of this House to perhaps 310 members. Just the physical problem alone of putting 35 Members within this Chamber would be tough enough. Despite all that confusion, disruption and expense, there is simply no justification for increasing the size of the House of Commons.
I ask my colleagues within the House today, rather than talking the Bill out, to allow it to go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Perhaps we will still have an opportunity to deal with it in some depth before the end of the session.


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-
June 19, 1984

Hastings (Mr. Ellis) for bringing this subject to our attention at this time. It is a timely subject because we are just on the eve of the redistribution order going out which will make into law the recommendations of the redistribution commissions across Canada.
I can sympathize with his remarks about rural constituencies. When I was first elected in 1965,1 had a small, compact riding of approximately 45,000 square miles. As a result of two redistributions, it is now 155,000 square miles. I can understand the pressures that rural Members come under in trying to serve ever-increasing geographical areas as well as ever-increasing numbers of people scattered over a wider geographical base. There is no question that it makes life more difficult for those Members and that it also reduces the quality of the representation that people in rural areas get because their Members are spread over such a wide distance.
Having said that, I think I should return to the terms of the Bill and point out to the Hon. Member and the House that, according to the Constitution of Canada, we are obliged to have a redistribution of parliamentary seats after each census. I was the Parliamentary Secretary to two Presidents of the Privy Council in the 1970s who had the responsibility of bringing forward the current legislation based on what we call the amalgam method.
I recall very well the original Bill for redistribution as put forward by the then President of the Privy Council, the current Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). That Bill provided that there would be a redistribution in which there would be a decrease in the House of Commons of one seat from 265 to 264. Hon. Members will recall the outcry, the outrage and the viciousness of the attacks on the Government not only from the four Opposition Parties in those days but from the back-benchers on the government side at the horrendous changes the redistribution Bill would have made to the House of Commons. What it would do in effect is to take away seats from five or six provinces and redistribute them to Ontario and, I believe, to British Columbia. There was a vicious debate that went on over a period of time until the Government got the message and, at the final moment, intercepted with a piece of legislation that interrupted the process. It was clear from that debate and the arguments in the House of Commons and in committee that the House was not prepared to accept a redistribution that would involve the loss of seats to smaller provinces.
As a result of that commitment, which the Government was forced to accept, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections was re-established to look into the matter, and the Government, after the election of 1974, came down with a series of proposals which were put before that committee.
One of the problems is that the Constitution of Canada provides for a form of representation in the House of Commons based on representation by population. We have never done that in the absolute. We have always tended in that direction but we have never attempted to apply that principle
Representation Act, 1984
across the board. We have always recognized that there are very large provinces, very small provinces, and some in the middle. We have always recognized that provinces require a certain level of representation in the House of Commons. There have been a number of formulae in various Acts which have protected the position of small provinces. It was really not until the great demographic changes of our country in the 1950s and 1960s, which led up to the redistribution of the 1970s, that we realized that the old system would no longer work. Therefore, a drastic overhaul was called for.
In the case of the proposition that representation was a major point of the exercise, three other principles also were developed to protect it.
The first was that no province could have fewer Members of Parliament than it had Senators. This principle protected, for example, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. This principle was added in 1915. The second principle was that no province could lose more than 15 per cent of its representation in a redistribution. This was added in 1952. The third principle was that no province could have fewer Members in the House of Commons than a province with a smaller population.
The problem was how to balance all of these conflicting problems. Furthermore, how could you balance these conflicting problems in light of what happened from 1972 to 1974 when it was clear that the House would no longer accept the principle that provinces could lose seats? Even with these three principles, the provinces had to be protected.
The difficulty was finding a new system. When the Privileges and Elections Committee met in 1974, it had five propositions before it which were designed to give the committee a variety of options. The committee, after investigating, chose the one which the Government proposed, the amalgam method. Why? Because that seemed to satisfy the requirements. As a result, the committee accepted it with a certain amount of enthusiasm. When the committee examined what could be done with the other four recommendations which the Government had presented, it decided that the amalgam method made the most sense. Second, the committee cast its net as broadly as it could among those few experts in Canada who knew anything about redistribution, and it was unable to come up with any other interpretation that would be satisfactory. The consequence was that, with some minor amendments, we ended up with the amalgam system and it went into effect in the redistribution which took place in the election of 1979.
I can certainly agree with the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Hastings that every sitting Member at that time who went through the redistribution found it an extraordinarily painful process. The problem we face today is that this is the second redistribution under that formula. As the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Hastings noted, the size of the House will increase substantially.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Shame.


John Mercer Reid: The question we now have to decide is whether that redistribution should take place,

June 19, 1984
Representation Act, 1984
whether it will provide better representation for Canadians, whether it will be neutral or whether it will produce less representation for Canadians. Like the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Hastings, my own personal prejudice, quite frankly, is toward a smaller House. I would prefer a smaller House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: I was here, like many other Members, when the House consisted of 264 Members. When we had the elections in 1979 and 1980, I was rather overwhelmed with the impact that another 12 Members could make in the House of Commons. But nonetheless I believe the question has to be looked at basically from the view of the smaller provinces, and whether or not their position in Confederation would be better or worse. Second, what will be the quality of representation available to the rural areas. If you do not increase the number of seats, then clearly any redistribution that takes place will quickly move seats from the rural areas into the cities. We all know why. The cities are growing more rapidly than the rural areas. Third, we know that population is moving from smaller provinces to the larger provinces. Fourth, if we do not provide additional seats, these tendencies will be hastened with a smaller House and will be made far more difficult.
I was of the opinion that the proposals of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, who led the charge against the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act of 1972, would, in effect, have an adverse impact on his home province of Saskatchewan, on Manitoba, and on the Maritimes. It struck me that those provinces were better off with a system in a smaller House where their Members would have more clout than in a bigger House where their Members would make up a smaller proportion of the whole. I argued that point with Members from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Maritimes. But so overpoweringly difficult was the concept that provinces would lose seats, that some provinces would come down to their Senate floor, and that some provinces would have enormous problems of compression when it came to the redistribution of seats that, by and large, they opted for the easy way out, which was to expand the membership. Having done that, and having agreed to that proposition, we ended up with the question: if you added 12 Members, what would be the status the next time? Could you just live with the increase of 12 Members? When you examined the demographics of the situation, you came immediately to the proposition that you could not, that you would end up with exactly the same proposition in the next redistribution. Therefore, the amalgam method was designed to provide a controlled increase of the House over three redistributions where it was thought it would level off and hold.
We are debating whether or not this should go forth. I believe that we have to look back to what our reactions were in the 1972 to 1974 period. It is my view that we cannot ignore the judgment we made at that point. Those of us who represented rural ridings know what happened even with the
increase in seats. My constituency in the Province of Ontario, which received seven additional seats, I believe, tripled in geographical size, and in terms of population increased from about 52,000 to about 78,000, an increase of over 50 per cent. The representation of those people in that geographical area is a very difficult job for whoever happens to be the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.
This was not an isolated case. If we take a look at rural Canada and at rural Ontario, we find that the rural ridings expanded pretty well all over, except those which had a significant urban population moving into the edge of it, for example, Nepean-Carleton at one point.
The dilemma is how we provide representation which will be acceptable. As a result of the premises which I have outlined that no province should lose seats, that no province should be in a position of going below its Senate numbers and that no province should have fewer Members in the House than a province with a smaller population, if we accept those principles we are in a conundrum. We would be in a conundrum if we stopped it at the population of the House of Commons today, at 282.
I doubt the redistribution commissioners would be any more successful in satisfying the House now than they were in 1974 when their last propositions came forward. It seems to me that that is the nub of the problem. The nub of the problem is how we represent all parts of Canada on an equal base. How do we represent all parts of Canada on a relatively equal population base or on a relatively equivalent regional base? In other words, how do we square the circle?
When we studied the present system in committee, we realized that it was certainly not perfect. It has great difficulties. It operates in some ways very irrationally, according to the formula we have laid down, but only because the conditions we have built into the formula are somewhat contradictory and somewhat irrational. Therefore, I regret that I cannot support that proposition of the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) because it does not deal with the conundrum facing us at this time. I know that he and the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) have been very aggressive in arguing the point that we should stop. However, it seems to me that where they have been deficient is in not being able to tell us how to resolve the very real regional, provincial and local conundrums into which we keep running.
Ideally it would have been practical to put into place the original proposition of the then President of the Privy Council, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), but it was unacceptable. If the Government had come before the House with a similar Bill today, it too would have been unacceptable. It would have been acceptable to certain provinces in the West. Certainly it would have been acceptable to many provinces in the East, but probably it would have been unacceptable to Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia as well. We have a very real problem in balancing the considerations of locality, provinciality and regionalism.
June 19, 1984

I should like to go one step further and talk about the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings. There is a bit of a technical problem with the proposition he has raised. In dealing with some of the details of this matter, it would be helpful for Hon. Members to understand just exactly what are some of our problems. Let me start first by looking at the explanatory notes to the Bill. They indicate:
The relative representation of the various provinces is determined by a formula found in Rules 1 to 6 of Section 51 in which one province, Quebec, serves as a reference point.
That is partly right and partly wrong. It is true that there is a base number of seats for Quebec. This is stated in Rule 1 under Subsection 51(1) of the Constitution Act. The number of seats allocated to Quebec is to rise at each subsequent redistribution by four. Under Rule 2, the electoral quotient for Quebec is divided into the population of each large province to determine the membership of the large province in the House of Commons. A large province is defined as any province other than Quebec having a population of more than 2.5 million. Following the 1971 census, only Ontario was categorized as a large province. Following the 1981 census, British Columbia was also included in this category.
The technical problem with the Bill is that the number of Members for small provinces, that is those with less than 1.5 million people, and for intermediate provinces, that is between 1.5 million and 2.5 million people, is calculated independently from the electoral quotient for Quebec. There is no relationship between their quotient and that for Quebec.
For small provinces, an electoral quotient is obtained by dividing their total population at the penultimate decennial census by the number of Members assigned to those provinces in the readjustment following the completion of that census. In other words, the practice is completely different, taking into account this census and the last census, as opposed to how we calculated for the large province where it is only done on the basis of population for that particular census.
Having done that, the quotient is then divided into the population of each province at the most recent census to determine its representation in the House of Commons. The Senate floor rule then comes into play. It prevents any province from having fewer seats than the number of Senators who sit for that province in the Senate. In the redistribution which led to the Representation Order proclaimed on June 11, 1976, the computation resulted only in Prince Edward Island being entitled to one seat and New Brunswick to nine. However, the Senate floor rule raised Prince Edward Island to four and New Brunswick to 10.
If Hon. Members thought that was difficult, they should look at the computation for what is called the intermediate provinces. It is more complicated. Again it is not determined by the electoral quotient for the Province of Quebec. It is calculated independently. In the last redistribution we had only two provinces in that category-British Columbia and Alberta. Under the present redistribution, British Columbia has moved into the large province size and Alberta is the only province which sits in the intermediate sector. I think Hon.
Representation Act, 1984
Members understand the difficulty with the proposal of the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, having been a Member of Parliament through two redistributions- and perhaps I will be one through the third redistribution-I understand the concerns of the Hon. Member who made the proposal today. While he has raised and described the difficulties, he has not really answered any of the problems. He suggested at one point that what we have now was brought forward by the Government. That is true only to the extent that anything that passes Parliament is brought forward by the Government. The fact is that the present system which led to the increase in the number of Members of Parliament was agreed to by the majority of the House of Commons and, if I remember correctly, by a majority from every Party. The reason it was agreed to was because many Members of Parliament realized the tremendous difficulties which would be created if we did not increase the size of the House.
When I was elected I represented 125,000 people because in the years before the 1962 election my part of Winnipeg, like so many other areas and cities across Canada, had experienced a very rapid expansion. I had more people in my constituency than lived in the Province of Prince Edward Island. When there were federal-provincial meetings, I would ask why I could not be present because I represented more people than did the Premier of Prince Edward Island.
Let us look at what would happen if we do not increase the number of Members of Parliament. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has gone through a description of how the number of seats is allocated to each province. In the Province of Manitoba, which I represent, we went from 14 seats when I was elected to 13 seats. We could do the calculations very easily. In about 25 years, Manitoba would be down to ten seats. We would stay at ten seats only because that is the number of Senators for Manitoba. Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would be in the same situation. The largest provinces would have more members and the smaller provinces would have fewer members.
That is not the whole story, or even the worst part of it. Of 14 constituencies in Manitoba, the constituency of Churchill covers two-thirds of the geographic area of that province. CLose to 60 per cent of the people of Manitoba live in the metropolitan area of Winnipeg. The same situation exists in British Columbia where the Cities of Vancouver and New Westminster have a very large percentage of the population. There is the same situation with Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta, Toronto and Hamilton in Ontario and Montreal in the Province of Quebec.
What is happening and will continue to happen if you limit the number of Members of Parliament to a fixed number will be predictable. The population will continue to grow in the urban areas. Not so many years ago, more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population lived in rural and isolated areas. I do not have the exact figures, but I believe in the United States

June 19, 1984
Representation Act, 1984
about 7 per cent of the population now lives on farms. I presume we are moving in that direction in Canada.
What will happen in the smaller provinces in particular, and in the larger provinces as well, is that the population in the urban areas will grow and in the rural and isolated areas it will be reduced or remain constant. Therefore, at the time of each redistribution the number of Members from urban areas will increase and the number from rural areas will decrease.
In my own Province of Manitoba, at some point in the future 650,000 or 700,000 of the one million population may live in the area of metropolitan Winnipeg. If the present constituency of Churchill remains as at present, covering two-thirds of the area of Manitoba, and if we drop to ten Members, one from Churchill and nine for the rest of the province, there will be six or seven Members from urban Winnipeg and two or three for the rural population of Manitoba. Province to province, you will have the same situation.
This is the exact reverse of what the Member who introduced the motion wants to do. Those representing rural constituencies would represent very large areas. With telephones, modern means of communication and better roads, it is much easier than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Far be it for me to claim to be an expert on the work of a rural Member of Parliament. However, I believe it would be very difficult for a rural Member to represent an area 300 to 400 miles from west to east and from north to south.
I agree there are many difficulties with the system we now have, which was agreed to by most Members of all Parties. While there are many difficulties, while we have not achieved the principle of representation by population, which is our theoretical objective, we have recognized that there are special problems with rural and isolated areas. A rural Member or a northern Member will represent less people than a Member representing an urban area. While we have not solved all of the problems, we do have a system which is as fair as possible.
I recognize all the objections to the system. I understand how people feel when they read that in the future we may have 300 Members of Parliament. However, the alternative of fixing the number, given that we want some concept of representation by population and want to ensure that rural and isolated areas have adequate representation, the present system is probably as good as can be devised.
I would be happy if somebody made suggestions to improve the system. I would look at any ideas. However, the simplistic solution of fixing the number of Members that we have at present would create tremendous problems, something the Member who introduced the motion wants to avoid.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us this afternoon presented by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Hastings (Mr. Ellis) proposes to maintain the size of the House of Commons at approximately its present strength by amending Rule 1 of the representation rules set out in Section 21 of the Constitution Act, formerly known as the British North American Act, so that the number of Members
from Quebec would not automatically rise by four in each redistribution of seats.
I have been thinking about this for some time. I agree in great part with the Member. Before getting into my main speech and the information I have gathered, it seems that over the years we have done a great deal of talking about representation by population. With all respect to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I suggest that we represent people as opposed to areas.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell), who was here a few moments ago, represents 25,000 people. From 1974 to 1979, I represented 125,000 in the riding of St. Catharines. If there had been representation by population, there should have been five of us in that city. I have not been able to come to grips with the whole idea of area versus people. Unlike people, areas do not have rights, and in that sense it is the people in the areas that we represent.
My dilemma is that basically I agree that we should limit this House to whatever number of seats we decide upon collectively. What will happen to this House of Commons over the years? The grievances that we have had will not be rectified in any particular way and we will keep going down the same path. Representation by population will ultimately fall by the wayside.
We often talk about rural areas. The Hon. Member has said that the rural area constitutes two-thirds of the Province of Manitoba. We could all understand the difficulty of getting around in an area like that if we had access only to horses and buggies. I could even understand it if there were only automobiles in which to get around. However, these days we have aircraft at our disposal. The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) is present today. I know that his riding is very large in area.


Laverne Lewycky: Three hundred and fifty miles from the north to the south, and 250 miles across, and I have no airplanes at my disposal.


Gilbert Parent: That is why we are having some of these problems. However, airplanes and helicopters tend to minimize problems which we once thought were insurmountable.
At one point or other, the House will truly have to come to grips with the whole concept of representation by population. I would like to put myself on the side of those people who say that we should be representing people as opposed to representing areas or land masses. Having said that, I am not sure that the Bill as it has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings will necessarily accomplish what the Hon. Member sets out to accomplish. Perhaps I could put the matter into my perspective and share with other Hon. Members some of my dilemmas.
Even though the Bill which is before us proposes to leave the number of Members from Quebec at a static level, the representation from other provinces would still increase at the time of the redistribution which would follow the 1991 census.
June 19, 1984

Only the representation from Quebec would stay the same while the representation from the other provinces would change. The number of seats allocated to Quebec directly influences only the number of seats allocated to the so-called larger provinces as outlined in the redistribution rules. The effect of this Bill would be to leave unchanged the rules for allocating seats to the small and intermediate provinces. As I understand it, there will be only one intermediate province after the next redistribution and that will be Alberta.
I do not wish to dwell on the fault inherent in this Bill. I do wish that I had a perfect solution to offer. I wish I could say: "Look, your Bill is wrong and this is what is right and this is what we should be doing." I am still struggling with the concept. Logic would tend to put me on the side of those who say that they are representing people as opposed to geographic areas.
If I may, for the benefit of all of us, I would like to offer some comments on the background of electoral redistribution in Canada. It is important to note that it is not a simple matter. Other Members have already said that. There are probably as many solutions to the problem as there are Members of Parliament. Redistribution is an especially complicated matter because of the federal nature of our country, and also because of some of its unique geographical and ethnic characteristics. I shall try to deal with both of those reasons.
It is widely held that Members of the House of Commons are elected on the basis of representation by population. I believe that is the myth that we hold out. The old cry for "rep by pop" arose in Canada West, the area which is now the Province of Ontario, prior to confederation. The residents of that part of the United Province of Canada complained bitterly about the fact that Canada East and Canada West had equal representation in the Parliament of that day, even though the population of Canada West had come to exceed that of Canada East. In 1840 when Upper and Lower Canada were united, the opposite was the case. However, the situation had become reversed and this grievance was one of many which had to be settled in the years of discussion which led to confederation in 1867.
When the Constitution Act was passed, it provided for the apportionment of seats in the House of Commons after each census according to certain rules and limitations. The distribution of seats among the four founding provinces was outlined in the original Section 51 of the Constitution Act. Quebec was assigned 65 seats, a convenient arrangement since that was the same number of constituencies that existed within Canada East before confederation. In 1867, the other three provinces were allocated Members of the House of Commons according to the relationship of their populations to the population of Quebec. Section 52 of the Constitution Act provided and continues to provide the following:
The number of Members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.
From the beginning, the distribution of seats among provinces was automatic. The ratio between seats from the various
Representation Act, 1984
provinces and the total number of Members in the House of Commons could be changed only by constitutional amendment. On several occasions since 1867, amendments to the Constitution Act were necessary. The most recent such amendment occurred about nine years ago in 1975 when the representation of the Northwest Territories was increased from one seat to two. The necessity for a constitutional amendment was entrenched in the Canadian Constitution by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 42(1) (a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which requires that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada may only be made in accordance with the general amending procedure set out in Subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982.
It is clear that the principle of representation by population was established early in our history as a united country. Within provinces, the size of constituencies often varied dramatically. Witness the words of the previous speaker, a Member who comes from Winnipeg, who said that one out of the ten ridings in Manitoba covers a geographic area equal to two-thirds the size of the entire province. This reflected the existence of huge, sparsely settled areas throughout the nation and the fact that there were limits on the size of a constituency which a Member of Parliament could reasonably represent. In addition, it became a fairly well established custom, even in the late 19th century, that urban seats would, as a rule, be larger than those in rural areas. Note that we are speaking of the 19th century, 100 years ago. Surely we have progressed enough now that we must somehow be able to make decisions based not solely upon geography.
The rule of representation by population was applied much more accurately among provinces than among the electoral districts within the provinces. Even so, there were departures from the principle of representation by population not long after confederation.
When Manitoba entered confederation in 1870 it was granted four Members, even though the population of the province entitled it to representation by only one Member. In 1871, British Columbia, which is now one of the larger provinces, was given six Members when there were only enough inhabitants in that province to justify two Members. In 1873, Prince Edward Island became the seventh province and, though entitled to only five Members, received six Members. When the great expanse of land which now includes Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Territories was first given representation in the House of Commons in 1886, the strict rules of representation by population were again departed from.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, to give you a great deal more information regarding exactly how it came about that the number of seats that we have now came to exist as opposed to the number of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 14, 1984, the House will resume consideration of Government Orders.

June 19, 1984
Time Allocation



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Kaplan):
That in relation to Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading of the said Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a Government Member said that the British system worked differently. It said that the British system had closure at the end of every day. Yes, but there are other things in the British system as well. I have attended committee meetings in the British system. Those committees work as committees. Those committees accept recommendations from other Parties and embody the recommendations in their legislation, because they want to have the best legislation possible. We should not compare the British system to the one we have.
The Government brags about how many hours of debate there have been. The House has heard that from the two or three Liberal speakers who finally rose to speak today on closure. The only time government Members speak is when there is closure. Those Members rose today and spoke about the hours of debate. It is not the hours of debate about which we are speaking. Why does the Government not accept some of the recommendations which have been made? If recommendations are not made by Liberals, they are no good. That is a terrible situation to have in a country such as ours. However, that is what happens every time the Government does not want to accept recommendations.
The Government brags about the hearings which were held on this legislation. Recommendations were made by 25 organizations. Did the Government accept any of those recommendations? Is there an amendment based on one of those recommendations? Those organizations did not come to Ottawa simply to talk, they wanted action. Most of the organizations were opposed to a civilian organization. But, that does not make any difference; the Government knows better. The Liberals do not go by democracy any more. They go by totalitarianism-the Government knows better and it knows what is good for the people. The Government will tell the people what is good for them. That is what the Government has been saying for a number of years.
Almost half of the nation objected to the national energy policy, but it did not make any difference. Closure was moved,
the legislation was passed and an industry was destroyed. It ruined hundreds of people in western Canada. Recommendations were made to the Crow legislation but that did not make any difference, the Government knew better. It introduced the legislation and gave the whole shebang to the CPR. No wonder Mr. Turner decided to run for the Party. How could he lose with the whole organization backing him? The Government could not be against the CPR. Now we have the future Prime Minister who is a director of the CPR.
Another matter which bothers me is that there has been no debate on why the RCMP was not chosen. What did the Government say? It said that the MacKenzie Commission in 1969 recommended a civilian service. The Mackenzie Commission did not study a civilian organization. What did the commission have to compare with since there was no civilian organization? If it was so wonderful in 1969, why did the Government not adopt it? It has been 15 years since that recommendation and the Government has not done a thing about it. Do not tell me about the Mackenzie Commission; this Government rejected that 15 years ago.
We could talk about the McDonald Commission which was set up to investigate the RCMP. That commission did not investigate a civilian organization. In no way did it have the authority to start telling people what kind of an intelligence service we should have in this country. Now we have this Bill.
Was the RCMP too hard on the communists? Is that why the Government does not want the RCMP? Has the RCMP refused the patronage which the Government wanted to give to it? Sure, the RCMP would do that. Maybe that is why the Government does not want it. It wants a civilian organization which will provide a few more jobs for a few more Liberal hacks.
In Britain, legislation goes to the Senate. If it is not right, it goes back. What happens here? It goes to a Liberal-dominated Senate which would pass anything and everything. The Canadian Senate even passed the holiday Bill. It was passed in this House by 13 Members. It went through all stages in one afternoon. In Britain, they would throw it back to the House of Commons. They have a system over there. This Government should not compare itself with the Mother Parliament.
In Canada, 71 per cent of the people do not want a civilian organization. They do not want civilians who are appointed by this Government to open their first-class mail. Neither do I. That does not matter because this Liberal Government knows better. It is made up of totalitarians. When these Liberals became Members they suddenly obtained a mass of wisdom they did not have before. Therefore, these Members can now tell the people of Canada what is good for them. The Government tells the people of Canada that this Bill is good for them, but the people do not want it. Democracy dictates that the people should get what they want. Our people are not illiterate.
The Government can get away with closure here, but the people will be pronouncing closure on the Liberals once an election is called. It will be goodbye Liberals. If the whole Party is wiped out, the people of Canada would be very, very
June 19, 1984

thankful. It is a totalitarian outfit over there that does not care what the people think. This Government refuses to reflect the thinking of the people. This Bill, like the national energy Bill and the Crow Bill, is an example of a Government determined to have its way. It tells the people what is good for them. Why do they not wake up and start acting the way in which a democratic government is supposed to act? This Government should reflect the thinking of the people.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, considering the importance of this legislation and the motion for time allocation now before the House, it would perhaps be useful to put things into perspective and try and find some serious justification for adopting a Bill that, I agree, is controversial. I have been sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and have been a member of the Committee since 1968.1 have tried to analyse the facts, to find some convincing reasons for supporting a Bill that, I repeat, is controversial.
I have found three reasons, Mr. Speaker, and I shall mention them briefly.
In the last fifteen years, two commissions have recommended creating a separate, civilian security intelligence agency.
In 1969, the MacKenzie Commission stated, and I quote:
Aside from a number of similarities in the investigation methods used, the differences between the responsibilities of a police corps and those of a security service would seem to be very distinct. The primary concern of a police corps is to enforce the law, to investigate offences, to collect evidence and to bring offenders before the courts. Security services are mainly engaged in preventive action and the collection of information ... Briefly, we believe that there is a distinct difference between the professional security officer and the professional police officer, and that this difference should be reflected in how they are recruited-
Mr. Speaker, I could also quote the McDonald Commission and the Senate Committee. In other words, I feel that anything is preferable to the status quo. It was the status quo that allowed the RCMP, that respected force, to take inappropriate action in Quebec, and I can certainly not find here any justification for the attitude of my hon. friends opposite, who in spite of all its shortcomings and imperfections, prefer the present situation to the proposed system. I am giving this Bill my approval in principle in order to eliminate the status quo and look to the future, even if I would have preferred to see a number of clauses amended.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. It being 6.10 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82 have expired.
It is therefore my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
Time Allocation
The question is as follows: Mr. Kaplan, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved:
That in relation to Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading of the said Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
get on with Orders of the Day. I believe we are to continue debate on Bill C-9.


Mr. Speaker:: We are now on Orders of the Day under the Special Order which was adopted by the House during extended hours. This is to deal with Government Orders. By interpretation of the Special Order adopted by the House, we are now on Government Orders.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understand Your Honour, we can all appreciate that what has happened now is that we are on Routine Proceedings on Motions. The motion was moved by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) with respect to time allocation. It was interrupted by Private Members' Hour from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.
I understand that the Order had two elements to it. One element was that we would continue to observe the 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Private Members' Hour regardless of what stage of the proceedings we were in. The second element was that the only business that could be considered during the extended hours would in fact be Government Orders. I think that a fair interpretation of that would presumably be predicated upon completing Routine Proceedings. Let us assume that normal circumstances prevailed and that we had this motion on a normal day. We would have the situation then of having to adjourn the debate in Private Members' Hour. If we were not sitting extended hours past six o'clock, it would then be another parliamentary day, at which time the normal procedure would be to transfer the motion to Government Orders.
However, since we are not moving into another parliamentary day, I suggest, with the greatest deference, that we are now faced with a continuation of the proceedings with which we were involved. Regardless of Private Members' Hour we would not arbitrarily curtail Routine Proceedings until they were completed at any point during the day unless we were interrupted by something that was provided for in the Special Order, such as Private Members' Hour.
It seems to me only fair and equitable that we get the normal Routine Proceedings out of the way. That would mean such things as answering Questions on the Order Paper and other items prior to proceeding to Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is quite prepared to rule. It may be the wish of the House to proceed with the rest of Routine Proceedings but if the Chair is called on to rule, the Chair has a ruling prepared for these circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is rising on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the electronic system has been working. I noticed one of the Clerks at the Table talking to herself. Unfortunately I could not hear what she was saying. I assume that we will now carry on with the rest of the Routine Proceedings and finish them so that we can


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member took a very long route to ask for unanimous consent of the House. We agree.


Mr. Speaker:: With unanimous consent, we will continue Routine Proceedings.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 19, 1984


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 44 and 830 to 834 inclusive.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have specific responsibilities in connection with the surveillance of coastal waters and, if so, what are they?
2.	Does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police patrol coastal waters?
3.	Does the Canadian Coast Guard make routine surveillance patrols in coastal waters?
4.	To which ministry do the RCMP and Coast Guard report for co-ordination of their activities?
5.	Is the Department of National Defence responsible for the co-ordination of any search and rescue operations and which ministry has the responsibility for determining the need for and extent of such operations?
6.	Does the Department of the Environment maintain any continuing activity in coastal waters and, if so, what activity?
7.	Do the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and of Indian Affairs and Northern Development maintain aerial surveillance over coastal waters and, if so, is any information obtained passed to one or more co-ordination centres?
8.	Which ministry, or ministries has or have the authority to issue instructions to private shipping in coastal waters?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed as follows:
1.	Under the Government Organization Act, 1979 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' duties, powers and functions include all matters not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada relating to:
(i)	sea coast and inland fisheries,
(ii)	fishing and recreational harbours,
(iii)	hydrography and marine sciences, and
(iv)	the co-ordination of the policies and programs of the Government of Canada respecting oceans, and such other matters over which the Parliament has jurisdiction relating to oceans as are by law assigned to the Minister.
In order to fulfil the Minister's responsibilities, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans operates a fleet of fisheries patrol, hydrographic and marine science craft on both coasts. The fisheries patrol vessels conduct patrols for the purpose of monitoring foreign and domestic fishing activity to ensure the conservation and protection of fish stocks under the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
2.	The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has several motor vessels located on both the East and West coasts. These vessels are a means of transportation and used for the enforcement of several federal statutes, such as the Fisheries Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the small vessel regulations, the Narcotic Control Act, the Excise Act and others. In addition to these duties,
Order Paper Questions
the RCMP vessels are also used in an assistance capacity, in search and rescue operations, and mercy escorts (transportation of sick/injured persons) whenever the situation arises.
3.	The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) conducts surveillance patrols of coastal waters by ship for the purpose of marine search and rescue, the maintenance of aids to navigation, and pollution prevention. Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers carry out missions in these areas as secondary tasks. Pollution prevention patrols are also carried out by a Coast Guard fixed wing aircraft over the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, and the Gulf as far as Sept-Iles. The Department of National Defence assist the Coast Guard in pollution surveillance as a secondary task during the course of their normal air reconnaissance missions.
4.	In their individual capacities, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Coast Guard report to separate ministries. The RCMP reports to the Solicitor General of Canada and the CCG reports directly to the Minister of Transport. Should the RCMP and CCG work jointly on a venture, i.e. search and rescue, they do so still under the auspices and direction of their individual Ministers.
5.	The Minister of National Defence is responsible for the co-ordination of SAR operations and for determining the necessity and extent of these operations. The Department of National Defence is responsible for co-ordinating all air and marine search activity in Canada and adjacent areas for which Canada has accepted responsibility under international agreements and for providing dedicated air resources to respond to both air and marine distress incidents.
6.	In so far as the Department of Environment is concerned, the following activities are carried out by each service in coastal waters:
Atmospheric Environment Service-issues marine and aviation weather forecasts to the 200-mile limit; operates ice reconnaissance, oil slick trajectory, and voluntary weather observing programs.
Canadian Wildlife Service-carries out inventory surveys and research of marine birds and implements regulations under Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Environmental Protection Service-responsible for protection of marine environmental quality through (i) environmental assessment; (ii) protection from specific environmental threats (discharges from mines, pulpmills, municipalities, etc.); (iii) administration of Ocean Dumping Control Act and part of the Fisheries Act; (iv) response to environmental emergencies (e.g. oil spills); (v) general coastal zone management.
Parks Canada-controls certain surface water activities such as recreational boating around Pacific Rim Park and evaluates potential for establishment of other national marine parks.
7.	No.
8.	In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned, the Environmental Protection Service does issue instructions pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Control Act and

June 19, 1984
Order Paper Questions
the Fisheries Act in relation to environmental protection considerations.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the authority to direct the activities of foreign fishing vessels in terms of virtually all their operations within the 200-mile economic zone. The Department has no legal power to direct the activities of domestic fishing vessels except as they relate directly to fishing.
The Ministry of the Solicitor General does not have primary statutory responsibility in respect of shipping in coastal waters. However, the RCMP assists several federal departments in carrying out their statutory enforcement obligations in coastal waters. In this connection, the force is empowered to issue instructions to private shipping in coastal waters.
The Department of Transport is responsible for the safety of shipping and prevention of pollution from ships in Canadian waters. The Canadian Coast Guard has the authority to issue instructions to private shipping in coastal waters related to vessel traffic services, ship routing, conditions of shipping, or conditions of the ships themselves requiring intervention by the regulatory authority. The Department is also responsible for issuing notices to mariners and notices to shipping to warn mariners of any dangerous or unsafe conditions such as pending storms, the presence of ice or outages of aids to navigation.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983 were any Czechoslovakian manufactured goods sold in Canada and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of such sales?
2.	In the same years were any Canadian manufactured goods sold in Czechoslovakia and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of all such sales?

Question No. 831-Mr. Blenkarn:
1.	In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983 were any Romanian manufactured goods sold in Canada and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of such sales?
2.	In the same years were any Canadian manufactured goods sold in Romania and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of all such sales?

Question No. 832-Mr. Blenkarn:
1.	In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983 were any Hungarian manufactured goods sold in Canada and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of such sales?
2.	In the same years were any Canadian manufactured goods sold in Hungary and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of all such sales?

Question No. 833-Mr. Blenkarn:
1.	In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983 were any East German manufactured goods sold in Canada and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of such sales?
2.	In the same years were any Canadian manufactured goods sold in East Germany and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of all such sales?

Question No. 834-Mr. Blenkarn:
1. In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983 were any Polish manufactured goods sold in Canada and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of such sales?
2. In the same years were any Canadian manufactured goods sold in Poland and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of all such sales?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
Statistics on the total value of Canadian imports from, and exports to Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, East Germany and Poland for the period 1979-83 are shown on the table below.
CANADIAN EXPORTS (Domestics and re-exports) (thousands of dollars)
1979	1980	1981	1982	1983Czechoslovakia	36,182	128,091	28,238	31,507	15,266Romania	32,290	22,633	9,372	4,576	18,999Hungary	14,377	10,981	11,936	13,772	15,202East Germany	35,979	10,605	4,455	21,552	202,143Poland	276,226	357,403	332,953	359,608	45,860
CANADIAN IMPORTS (thousands of dollars)
1979	1980	1981	1982	1983Czechoslovakia	67,509	63,381	72,890	60,337	54,443Romania	39,469	37,973	46,466	30,479	50,131Hungary	31,215	25,897	31,225	25,531	27,984East Germany	9,776	9,620	12,790	9,695	10,117Poland	82,778	72,159	73,981	43,562	39,512(a)	The large increase in Canadian exports to Czechoslovakia in 1980 was attributable to large shipments of pulp and paper industry machinery ($98.8 million).(b)	Exports to East Germany in 1983 rose dramatically, due to greatly increased shipments of barley ($139 million) and wheat ($56 million).(c)	In 1983, export shipments to Poland fell sharply, primarily because of a large drop in wheat sales (from $348 million in 1982 to $18 million in 1983).(d)	With respect to the reduction in imports from Poland over the past five years, a number of product areas were contributing factors, none of which were as pronounced as the cases mentioned above. Some of these were:1979	1983($ million)	(S million)Meat and preparations	2.8	0Fur skins undressed	2.6	0Textile fabrics	9.2	4.5Apparel	18.5	5.7Other transportation equipment	6.7	1.1Marine engines and parts	3.1	0Footwear	5.3	2.2
The total drop in these products amounted to approximately $35 million over the five-year period.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
June 19, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Motions Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51 have been grouped for debate.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 40 disposes of Motion No. 41; a negative vote on Motion No. 40 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 41. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 42 disposes of Motion No. 43; a negative vote on Motion No. 42 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 43. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 45 disposes of Motions Nos. 46 and No. 47. A negative vote on Motion No. 45 necessitates separate votes on Motions No. 46 and 47. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 48 disposes of Motions Nos. 50 and 51; a negative vote on Motion No. 48 necessitates separate votes on Motions Nos. 50 and 51.
I will now put the motions before the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 40
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 5 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Where an arrangement or other form of co-operation is".
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 18
(a)	by striking out line 10 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor: "person shall intentionally disclose any information that the"
(b)	by striking out lines 16 to 23 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"and from which the identity of any other person who is or was a confidential source of information or assistance to the service can be inferred."
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 46
Security Intelligence Service
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 25 to 33 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"the purpose."
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by striking out lines 27 to 33 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"disclosure of the information to any minister of the Crown is essential in the public interest and that interest clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, to that person."
(b)	by striking out line 38 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor: "disclosure, and shall submit a report to the Review Committee with respect to disclosures referred to in paragraphs 2(a), (b) and (c)."
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 20
(a)	by striking out line 44 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor: "officers, provided there shall be no breach of the Criminal Code."
(b)	by striking out line 13 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor: "Review Committee, and to the Attorney General of the province in which the employee may have acted unlawfully."


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 51
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 20
(a)	by adding immediately after line 44 at page 10 the following:
"(2) The Director and employees in performing the duties and functions of the Service under Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of this Act may never act beyond the limits prescribed by the Act and any such activity will constitute an offense subject to criminal prosecution.
(3) The Service shall have no authority to carry on operational activities to destabilize or disrupt individuals or groups which might otherwise be investigated under this section."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 13 at page 11 the following:
"(5) No other agency or agents in Canada shall carry out any or all of the responsibilities assigned by this Act to the Service in Section 12 nor have access to the warrants provided for in Section 21."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this group of motions is a very important grouping. It deals with Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive of the Bill. These clauses establish the terms pursuant to which the proposed civilian security service may, as it was euphemistically called, share information with other government Departments, with foreign security intelligence services, or with foreign agencies.
The provision in Clause 18 is the provision which makes it an offence to disclose the identity of any person who is or was a confidential source of information or a person who is or was an employee engaged in covert operational activities.
Clause 19 is the provision which permits disclosure of information obtained by the service to a whole series of individuals, including literally any person in the Public Service of Canada where the director in his or her opinion believes that that disclosure would be helpful.
Clause 20 is the final clause in this package which grants the full array of immunities which are possessed by peace officers to the members of the proposed civilian security

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
service. It establishes a mechanism whereby possible illegality will be reported.
The purpose of these amendments is to strengthen what are at the moment clearly very seriously and fundamentally flawed clauses.
Dealing first with the provisions of Clause 17, this clause permits the service to pass on information which it has obtained, using all of the most intrusive techniques set out in this Bill. It permits the service to pass on this information literally to any security service anywhere in the world. I think it is appalling that Canada should be prepared to share information on Canadians and on refugees from other countries with foreign security agencies which, by the admission of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) himself, are not even acknowledged in their own countries. What kind of regressive, military dictatorships are we dealing with, Mr. Speaker, that would not even acknowledge their own intelligence agencies and with whom we are quite prepared to share all the information they seek?
The Canadian Council of Churches appeared before our committee and expressed its very grave concern about this provision, particularly in terms of the potential implications for political refugees from Third World countries. The Council had recommended that the Bill specifically prohibit arrangements with nations and organizations that have been found to permit gross systematic and consistent violations of fundamental human rights. That is one of the provisions which I have proposed in this package of amendments in the motions now before the House.
I have only ten minutes so I will be brief on Clause 18. This clause sets out the criminal sanction for any individual who discloses information that could reveal the identity of an individual who is or was an employee of the service. This provision goes far, far beyond comparable legislation in the United States, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I would note that that Act applies only to operatives engaged in foreign intelligence. We know the provisions of Bill C-9 would not in fact enhance the operations of the service outside Canada. This Bill would make it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, for an individual to disclose that he or she was or is an operative of the service. It is only because of this kind of disclosure that historically in 1976-1977 many of the most serious abuses and criminal wrongdoings were revealed. But under the provisions of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, any individual who makes such a disclosure or any person in the press who repeats such disclosure could go to jail for five years. The provision was drafted far too broadly.
Clause 19 permits the service to use the information it has obtained through the use of intrusive techniques, bugging phones, breaking into homes, accessing income tax records and medical records. There is a whole array of powers. To whom can the service give this information? Incredibly, they can give that information virtually to anyone under the provisions of Clause 19 where it is stated that in the opinion of the director, the disclosure of the information to any Minister of the Crown or any person in the Public Service of Canada is essential in
the public interest. Not only is there a massive intrusion on the privacy of Canadians initially but, having intruded on that privacy, the director of the service can then pass on any of that information literally to any public servant anywhere in the country. One of our motions would ensure that that kind of massive violation of the privacy of Canadians would not be tolerated.
The final motions in this package which are tabled deal with proposed Clause 20. Clause 20 is the clause which was inserted in the Bill to provide the full array of protections accorded to peace officers to the agents of the new civilian security service. This is completely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. It would permit agents of the new service effectively to take unto themselves the decision as to which laws can or cannot be broken in pursuit of the sweeping mandate under this legislation.
We know all too well the unfortunate history of the RCMP security service which involves breaking and entering, theft, fraud, kidnapping, forgery, and breaches of a whole series of laws. This would provide carte blanche to the service to decide whether or not, in pursuit of their objectives, their civilian security objectives, they should be permitted to break laws.
I proposed an amendment which would have clearly prohibited the service from at least breaking the Criminal Code. But Members on the Government side voted even that proposal down. There is nothing that would prevent the security service from breaking the Criminal Code in the pursuit of its activities.
The McDonald Commission documented a whole series of violations of the law. The response of this Government is, "Well, it may have been illegal then, but we will change the law and we make it legal now." What does that do to the rule of law in this country?
Finally the motions which I have before the House would ensure that not only the Attorney General of Canada but also the provincial attorneys general will be informed of any suspected breach of the criminal law. As it stands now, it is only the federal attorney general who is informed of such possible breaches of the law. We know all too well the history of this Government in refusing to take action, in refusing to uphold the rule of law in Canada, in insisting there is one law for the RCMP and another law for all other Canadians. We want to ensure, through this motion, that the provincial attorneys general as well will be given the authorization to proceed to prosecute if, indeed, there is evidence of a breach of the law.
In conclusion, with respect to the sweeping nature of the powers to hand on information to other police agencies, with respect to the overly broad nature of the offence of disclosure of identity, with respect to the abuses which can occur in disclosing information obtained and with respect to the law enforcement powers accorded under this Bill, powers which are not accorded to comparable agents in other jurisdictions, these motions, I submit, must be adopted by the House in order to protect the fundamental civil liberties of Canadians.
June 19, 1984


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the clauses we are considering now, Clauses 17, 18, 19 and 20, have caused a great deal of alarm not only in the riding of Spadina that 1 represent but in many other parts of the country. People are shocked to think that the Government is about to insist on establishing a secret police that will not be fully answerable to Parliament, because the information which will come to Parliament will all be screened by the director of the secret police, and that could enter into any kind of secret agreement with any agency of any foreign power which the Minister in charge and the Secretary of State for External Affairs choose to designate.
We have people in Canada who have come from all countries of the world with all kinds of governments. Some of them came on the run for their lives and have relatives or friends back home. I have spoken with many refugees, particularly from Latin American countries but also from eastern European and Asian countries. They are very uneasy, even under present conditions, about what might be done to people back home if certain agents of their home country obtain information about lawful words they may be uttering here or about legitimate and lawful actions which they may be taking here in criticism of dictatorial administrations back home. There are many people from countries such as those in Latin America who dare not speak out in Canada out of fear of the persecution which might be visited on their families and friends back home.
These proposals by the Government would make that situation far worse since it would then become potentially the duty of Canada's secret police to hand information to goodness knows whom in whatever country, perhaps based upon activities of naturalized Canadian citizens acting in Canada completely within the law. It is shocking that Canada would be asked to undertake to be the cat's-paw, the stooge for foreign dictatorships. That is clearly what the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) intends to provide when he refuses any kind of limitation on this clause concerning the human rights practices of governments to which this life and death information might be given.
There are millions of Canadians who are members of labour unions in Canada. Perhaps they are mostly Canadian born. I am not necessarily speaking of immigrants, but they are members of labour unions affiliated, for example through the Canadian Labour Congress, with groups such as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and with other labour bodies such as the International Labour Organization. There again they have grave concerns about what may be done by way of transferring information through Canada's proposed secret police to the secret police of any other country.
We have heard more than once the expression of concern of the Moderator of the United Church and others of the Canadian Council of Churches who have obligations as brothers and sisters within the Christian faith. The same applies to people of other faiths such as the Jewish faith and Asian faiths. Those
Security Intelligence Service
concerns are legitimate ones of people who practise those religions in Canada.
I should like to refer to a telegram from the Canadian Council of Churches dated June 6. It reads as follows:
Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, should not be passed by the present Parliament until (a) it makes clear and rigorous provisions for the accountability of the service,-
This is what we are concerned with in one of the amendments. Any lawbreaking should be fully accounted for, not covered over as provided by the Government's position. The telegram continues:
-(b) defines national security and describes more precisely those activities which are illegal under the Act, (c) provides for the continuation of a free and vigorous participatory society in which work for justice on behalf of the poor, the marginalized and refugees may be carried on without fear of surveillance and prosecution.
It was signed by the Reverend Dr. Donald W. Anderson, General Secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches. Also I have a telegram from the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights in Colombia. We may think of the problems in Colombia as being a small matter, but there are Canadians who are concerned about human rights there. The telegram reads:
As a committee which condemns the human rights abuses of the Colombian Government, we find the proposed Bill C-9 alarming and threatening. Even though our work is entirely legal this Bill could be used to secretly monitor our activities. It could be used to misinform, or inform out of context, the Colombian Government of our activities. In short, this is a dangerous and complex Bill which must not be passed.
It is signed by the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights in Colombia. I have another telegram which reads:
I am strongly opposed to Bill C-9. As someone who grew up in a Latin American dictatorship, watching Canada become more repressive frightens you.
It is signed by R. Mesa. Also I have a very practical proposal from another constituent, which reads:
Any Canadian who doesn't actively oppose Bill C-9 should be sentenced to a few years in many Latin American countries, to learn what a dangerous thing repressive power is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair would like to remind the Hon. Member that the remarks he is making should be directed to the clauses we are discussing. That does not seem apparent to the Chair in the telegrams he has read.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I accept your advice and wish to explain that I read them for the purpose of showing how this Bill or the proposal in it threatens the perceived safety of residents of Canada who consider that they are acting lawfully. They feel threatened because Clause 17 of the Bill proposes to give information to unnamed foreign powers under, perhaps, secret arrangements.
There is one further point I wish to make. I believe it is not sound in law to try to bind the conscience of any public servant. If it should happen, as it has throughout history, that a public servant engaged in police work feels that he has been led or pressured to violate his conscience in what he has done, and if he wishes to correct that situation morally and spiritual-

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
ly by speaking up, it ought not to be a matter for punishment if what he says is true. This Bill proposes to punish people for telling the truth about what they consider to be the misdeeds of the service. That is shameful. This provision ought to be withdrawn.
Finally, we should think of what will be done to all professional and government record keeping in the country if every time a person makes an entry he considers that it might be looked at by Canada's new secret police. It will destroy generations of professional tradition in objective and conscientious record keeping. The damage will not be undone for many years thereafter even when this unjust law has been repealed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is on Motion No. 40 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The following group of motions will now be considered by the House: Motions Nos. 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 which have been grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 52 disposes of Motions Nos. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59. A negative vote on Motion No. 52 necessitates votes on Motions Nos. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 as follows: One, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 54 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 55, 56 and 57. A negative vote on Motion No. 54 necessitates separate votes on Motions Nos. 55, 56, 57. Two, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 58 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 59. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 60 disposes of Motions Nos. 61, 62 and 63. A negative vote on Motion No. 60 necessitates votes on Motions Nos. 61, 62 and 63 as follows: One, an affirmative
vote on Motion No. 61 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 62. A negative vote on Motion No. 61 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 62. Motion No. 63 would be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 66 obviates the need for votes on Motions Nos. 67 and 68. A negative vote on Motion No. 66 necessitates separate votes on Motions Nos. 67 and 68.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 52
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

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

Motion No. 55
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 35 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"subject to the Statistics Act and the Income Tax Act where the judge".

Motion No.56
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 35 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"subject to the Statistics Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act where the judge".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Motion No. 57 stands in the name of Mr. Allmand. Mr. Allmand not being in the House, another Member may move the amendment, with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 19, 1984


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 57
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 32 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"meaning of paragraphs (c) and (d) of the definition".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In the absence of Mr. Allmand, motion No. 58 may be moved by another Hon. Member. Therefore, with unanimous consent-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 58
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 13 the following:
"(6) No application made to a judge under this section may be heard or approved unless an intervenor, appointed from a panel of lawyers by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has had the opportunity to cross-examine and make representations on the application in order to protect any constitutional and civil rights."

Motion No. 59
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 13 the following:
"(6) A warrant shall not be issued under subsection 3 authorizing the obtaining of any information or thing or intercepting any communication which would reveal confidential medical records except with the consent of the patient."

Motion No. 60
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 22.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: Motion No. 62
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 22
(a)	by striking out line 40 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor: "judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding 60 days if satisfied by".
(b)	by striking out line 44 at page 13 and lines 1 and 2 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"threat to the security of Canada as defined in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" in section 2 or to perform its duties and functions under section 16; and".
Security Intelligence Service


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 63
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 44 at page 13 and lines 1 and 2 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"threat to the security of Canada; and".

Motion No. 66
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 24 by striking out lines 32 to 36 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"rant."


John Raymond Ellis: Motion No. 68
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 24 by striking out lines 34 to 36 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"person acting in accordance with such a warrant".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: We will now proceed with the debate on this grouping of motions.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I had thought that perhaps I might have to speak on a motion proposed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) but I am very pleased to see that that motion is not being moved at this time. Therefore, I will confine my remarks to the motions which are before the House at this time.
These motions deal with Clauses 21, 22 and 24 of the proposed legislation, Bill C-9. These provisions really lie at the heart of this Bill because they deal with the powers which can be accorded to the new service. Clause 21 is the clause which permits the service to obtain warrants for unprecedented interventions into the private lives of Canadians. This would include warrants for mail opening, warrants for obtaining access to confidential income tax records, warrants for obtaining access to medical records, warrants for breaking into homes and warrants for stealing documents. The list goes on and on.
I would emphasize that the powers proposed in this provision of the legislation are unprecedented and are powers which do not exist at the present time. The Pitfield Committee, in reviewing these particular provisions, urged for the use of a number of safeguards before a judicial warrant could in fact be issued. One of the most important of such safeguards is one which would in effect provide a balancing test to ensure that a judge, in granting a warrant, would in fact weigh the possible threat to the privacy of Canadians against the worth of the information which would be obtained in the pursuit of national security. The amendment in question would require that where the judge is of the opinion that the intelligence to be gained through the issuance of a warrant outweighs the harm to

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
privacy that will result, provided that the judge is satisfied with the other conditions, the warrant could in fact be issued.
As well, I would note that the intrusive powers referred to in this Bill go far beyond those which were recommended by the McDonald Commission, because they could indeed be used against so-called domestic subversives. On that basis, I would strongly urge that these sweeping intrusive powers not be granted to the new agency. I could go on at some length to speak about the fact that these powers are unprecedented, but at this point I will take my seat and allow the debate to take its course.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this grouping of amendments relating to clauses in the Bill concerns me very greatly. I have been engaged in labour union activities, church activities, peace movement activities and civil liberties activities. I have been active as a member of a residents' association. I have been aware of the activities of the RCMP which, in many cases, has infiltrated these groups and treated us as though, somehow or other, we were enemies of the state. That is very destructive and very harmful. The police have no business doing that.
For example, I know of the case of a theological student who joined a civil liberties group at McGill University for the purpose of opposing the padlock law, a law which some years later was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada as being beyond the powers of the provincial Government of Quebec. Yet this student was harassed in the sense that the police visited his academic superiors to try to hinder his graduation and subsequent ordination. That kind of activity does not protect the liberties of Canadians but will destroy the liberties of Canadians if we allow that kind of activity to go too far.
This kind of intrusive legislation ought to be withdrawn by the Government or defeated by the Members of this House. I urge that the legislation be rejected entirely.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Serge Joyal: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) on a point of order.


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


An Hon. Member:: No. 61.


Serge Joyal: I am sorry, No. 61. With your permission, I should put it to the House so that it might be debated and voted on eventually.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair gave the number of the motion a moment ago and since there was no reaction, it moved on to the next one. However, the Minister may move it on behalf of his colleague, if that is his intention. That is in accordance with the Standing Orders.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just sought clarification on this from the Clerk and it is my understanding that if the mover of the motion is not present in the House, then of course the motion cannot be put without unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The rule to which the Hon. Member has referred is a general rule which does not apply to members of the executive. We can find the proper quotation in Beauchesne's to indicate that, but Ministers regularly move motions for their colleagues without unanimous consent. The Chair has no choice. If the Minister wishes to move the motion on behalf of his colleague, the Chair must let him do so.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: On another point of order?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, may I say, before you rule, that the provisions state that when a Member does raise a point of order, it is required that the Chair cite the precedent in question or the provisions of the Standing Orders which are applicable.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Under the provisions of the Standing Orders, it is clearly the case that the Chair is required to cite the provisions upon which the Chair relies. Of course, I do not need to cite that provision to the Chair. Pending that requirement being fulfilled, I would suggest that indeed there is no special status for members of the executive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: No, the Chair has made a ruling which now stands. We will proceed, but meanwhile, to satisfy the Hon. Member, someone from the Table will research the rules in order to provide the Hon. Member, as he wishes, with reading of the proper citation.

The Hon. the Secretary of State.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move Motion No. 61 which reads as follows:
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 38 to 40 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"to apply for such a warrant after having obtained the approval of the Minister, the judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding the period for which the warrant may be issued pursuant to subsection 21(5) if satisfied-
June 19, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. The Speaker can correct me if I am wrong, but it was my recollection that the Speaker did in fact call Motion No. 61 and that no one was present to move the motion. Whether or not that was the case, certainly no member of the executive rose-even if they are permitted to do so-at that time to propose the motion on behalf of another Member. Mr. Speaker, I suggest, with respect, that even if the case is-and that remains to be determined-that a member of the executive can move a motion on behalf on another member of the executive, this motion was called by the Chair but was not proposed by another member of the executive. How on earth, at this point, without unanimous consent, can the House revert to an earlier motion which was called but was not put? I suggest that the Chair might want to seek some guidance from the Table. The motion was called and there was no one present to put it. Without unanimous consent, surely it would be procedurally improper to permit any Member to return to a motion which was not put forward at the appropriate time.
[ Translation]


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, you have ruled on a point of order. You are on motion No. 61 and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) was reading it. What the Member opposite is trying to do is to question the ruling you have just made. Indeed, the Secretary of State was reading the motion and he ought to continue, as he should after the ruling you have made.


Mr. Burghardt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Chair would like to refer to the point of order which the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) spoke to, I would point out that the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) tried to get the attention of the Chair and raised his hand when the motion was being called.


Some Hon. Members:: That is not correct.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: It is correct. I was here. I would bring that to your attention, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Minister for Veterans Affairs raised his hand in an attempt to get the attention of the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: All the remarks which the Chair has heard since the Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) read the motion, are reflections on the ruling.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is right.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair has recognized and has agreed to the fact that the Hon. Secretary of
Security Intelligence Service
State may move the motion. We have not moved to the next grouping of motions. We are still on the same motions. Therefore, the Chair sees no reason that the Minister should not be able to move the motion on behalf of his Party.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, while we may have been dealing with a grouping of motions, the Chair called one motion. At the time the Chair called that motion; no one rose to speak to it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You are in contempt. Sit down.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It has been suggested that someone may have tried to rise. But, Mr. Speaker recognizes individuals who try to rise. Having called a motion, and no one having risen to put forward that motion, it is clearly out of order that the Government should now attempt to come back to it. It is a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly out of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You should be named.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Stifle yourself, Blais. You will not be around anyway after the next election.
It is clearly a separate point of order. I ask the Speaker to take note of the fact that this is a separate point of order, completely separate from the question of whether another member of the executive could move the motion. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is whether another member of the executive council-one who is not sleeping like the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais)-could move the motion. That is a separate question.
The question is simply this: Did the Chair call Motion No. 61? The answer to that question is yes. The Chair called motion by motion, 58, 59 and 60. Then the Chair called Motion No. 61. Having called Motion No. 61 the Chair did not recognize anyone; not the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), not the Minister of National Defence, who was sleeping in his seat, to speak on that motion. Having called the motion and no one having risen to speak to the motion, I submit with respect that we cannot rewrite history.
Had the motion not been called, the argument could have been made that the distinguished Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) might have moved the motion on behalf of his colleague. That is a separate question. The motion was called. No one rose to speak to the motion. That being the case, after a lot of scurrying around on the part of the incompetent Parliamentary Secretary, suddenly the Government realizes that it may have lost the motion. It is Your Honour's duty to uphold the rules and precedents in this House. I would appeal to the Table to advise the Chair with respect to the propriety of a motion of this nature.
After a motion has been called it is utterly wrong-if no one has spoken to it-for the Chair to permit another member of the executive council to attempt to put that motion. That is not a reflection on the previous ruling of the Chair. The previous ruling dealt with the question of whether a colleague of the Solicitor General could move the motion. That was the previ-

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
ous ruling of the Chair. With respect, the Chair did not rule on the question of whether or not a motion, having been called and no one rising to speak to that motion, could be attempted again, a second time, a third time or a fourth time. Once it has been called and no one has risen to speak to the motion, or was recognized by the Chair, and the Chair moves on, clearly without uanimous consent that motion cannot be put again. I appeal to the Speaker to uphold the rules and traditions of this House.


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


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, before you rule on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, I would point out, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) said to you earlier, that a ruling had been made. The Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) had just about finished reading the motion when he was interrupted by the Member for Burnaby who continues to do in the House what he did in committee, namely acting in the interests of the New Democratic Party rather than in the interests of democracy.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have a bit of a problem. The motions were grouped together. The motions were read and no one on the other side rose to move or second Motion No. 61. Debate then started on the grouping of the motions. Halfway through the debate, there was an attempt made to renew the motion. It seems to me that if this motion is allowed, there should be a provision made for Members to debate the group of the motions a second time.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on the same two points of order, I am quite sure that the Table Officers have advised you correctly, that members of the executive can, in fact, move motions for a member of the executive who is not present. The point which the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the previous speaker made is correct. I have sat here throughout this dilemma which seems to have seized the House. Mr. Speaker, I clearly heard you read-and I am sure the "blues" will demonstrate this-through those motions. When you came to Motion No. 61, no member of the executive-and there were two present, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal)-moved or seconded Motion No. 61.
Procedurally, in the five years I have been here I have never seen-after a motion has been called I have been called and no one has moved it, and once debate had already occurred-a case where the House reverted, to reintroduce a motion. I have never seen that situation. I would appreciate being informed of any citations which would allow that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: There are two questions before us. The first is whether the Minister required unanimous consent to move a motion on behalf of his colleague. I will deal with this matter first, and I will provide a citation for the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The citation can be found on page 300 of Bourinot's. It reads as follows:
-Ministers also have the privilege of proposing the motions of their absent colleagues.
I could read the whole citation, but that is the main sentence.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: We accept that ruling. There is no argument there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: There was argument. Therefore, I am trying to clear it up.
With regard to the second point of order, I believe it will be much easier to deal with. We have not deferred this group of motions yet. Therefore, there is nothing which can stop the Chair from recognizing someone who wants to move one of these motions. As a matter of fact, the Chair had already ruled. But, out of courtesy, the Chair listened to several Members. However, if the Members look at the "blues", the ruling had already been made and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) was in a position to read and move the motion on behalf of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan). As a matter of fact, so-called points of order were raised at the time he was reading, an interruption, in fact, of what was going on. Therefore, the Chair sees no reason to change its previous ruling, and will revert to the Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal).


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I have already read the text of the motion in French. I could read it again in English, if you wish. But I have completed the reading of the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I thought the hon. gentleman had been interrupted in the course of reading the motion.


Serge Joyal: Motion No. 61
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 38 to 40 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"to apply for such a warrant after having obtained the approval of the Minister, the judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding the period for which the warrant may be issued pursuant to subsection 21(5) if satisfied by".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this motion is one which deals with the question of warrants. I know that this grouping includes as well a number of motions which deal with the question of the granting of warrants,

June 19, 1984

including motions proposed by my friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).
Unfortunately, I was not in the House at the time, but I know we would want to speak on Clause 21, which is the essential clause which grants warrants for some of the instru-sive techniques permitted under this legislation. For example, Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 61, which is before the House, would permit the renewal of a warrant for the opening of first class mail. I know that the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, as a former Postmaster General, has some views on the question of the power to open first class mail. This grouping, indeed, refers to the question of opening of mail. It would grant powers to use a judicial warrant to access any government record, whether it be income tax records, confidential employment records or family allowance applications. Indeed, anything in the possession of the Government, Mr. Speaker, would be accessed under the provisions of this Bill. As well, Mr. Speaker, it would permit the breaking and entering into literally any place in this country.
That being said, I would note that this again is a new power in the hands of a security service, a power which does not currently exist. What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that even though the status quo is flawed, this Bill would take us backwards. It is a Bill which would give powers to the service to target Canadians who are suspected of being involved in so-called domestic subversion. I know that the Hon. Member for Vancouver South has an amendment in this grouping which deals with that question. It addresses the question of the deleting references to so-called domestic subversion. This Bill would permit intrusive techniques to be used against Canadians even though this proposal was rejected by the McDonald Commission.
Second, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to this day has absolutely failed to justify his suggestion that intrusive powers are needed against so-called domestic subversives. Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Solicitor General where the evidence is which would suggest that there are groups or individuals in this country who must be targeted by the service because they are attempting to overthrow by violence the democratic structure of government in this country. The Solicitor General has refused to provide any evidence because the reality is, Mr. Speaker, that such evidence does not exist.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, even though the present Commissioner of the RCMP has clearly indicated that the use of such intrusive powers, or the possible use of such intrusive powers, would only be of marginal value at best in the pursuit of the security mandate, this Minister chooses to ignore that fact. He chooses to ignore the recommendations of the McDonald Commission and to completely ignore the practices in other jurisdictions. In the United States, for example, a criminal standard is applied before such intrusive techniques can be made available to the security service. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, but that if powers of this nature were being sought in the United States by the FBI, there would be a congressional uproar. Yet, Hon. Members on the government side sit like trained seals saying,
Security Intelligence Service
"Ready I ready, Mr. Minister. We will do whatever you want".
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the powers which are referred to in this grouping, on which we will be hearing very shortly from the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, are so sweeping and so unprecedented that they constitute nothing less than a massive assault on the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians. And this is all done, Mr. Speaker, in the guise of protecting national security. What a chilling example, Mr. Speaker, of double-speak or double-think.
I would note as well, Mr. Speaker, that under the provisions of this Bill, for the first time the confidential medical records of Canadians will be accessible to members of the security service. The Canadian Medical Association, not exactly a left wing subversive group, has written to Parliament urging the Government not to proceed with this Bill. This letter is from the Secretary General of the Canadian Medical Association who concluded by saying, and I quote:
In summary I must express to you in the strongest possible terms the CMA's concerns over the potential misuse and abuse of the information in medical records if the aforementioned sections are retained in the bill.
The Canadian Medical Association made those representations to the committee. But what does this Government do? It ignores the representations and chooses to proceed with this provision.
The Secretary of State should hang his head in shame at being the mover of motions which would in fact permit access to medical records and which would permit access to confidential government records. At one time that Hon. Member, the Secretary of State, was known as a defender of the civil liberties of Canadians. Unfortunately, in moving this motion on behalf of his colleague, the Solicitor General; this motion which flies in the face of all of the recommendations of the McDonald Commission, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, la Ligue des droits et libertes, and all of the other witnesses who appeared before our committee, the Secretary of State has turned his back on the civil liberties of Canadians. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that is a sorry chapter in what has otherwise been a rather distinguished career.
I will conclude now, Mr. Speaker. I know I have little time and we will want to hear from Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party on that important provision.
This legislation constitutes, without any doubt whatsoever, the most serious invasion of the privacy of Canadians that could be imagined. As I noted before, nothing is sacred. Even the church confessional can be bugged under the provisions of this Bill. There is one small exception, that of the census records. But why was it felt that the census records should be singled out, while at the same time allowing security access to medical records, journalist records; indeed, to all of the most confidential records which exist in this country? It is a shameful provision and I urge Members of this House to defeat this Bill, or any measure which would countenance such a massive onslaught on the privacy of Canadians.

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government ought to explain to the House exactly what the purpose of Motion No. 61 is. It says:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 38 to 40 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"to apply for such a warrant after having obtained the approval of the Minister, the judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding the period for which the warrant may be issued pursuant to subsection 21(5)-
That literally means that despite the caveat contained in the spirit of the Bill, for the first renewal the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) must apply his or her mind to the problem. After that it would appear that there is no longer any requirement for the Solicitor General to concern himself or herself with further renewals. If I interpret the wording correctly, then that is really quite an extraordinary section to be moving into the Bill. I cannot understand why Government Members are not explaining what this really is intended to mean.


Mr. Deniger:: Because it speaks for itself.


John Allen Fraser: I have forgotten the riding of my friend on the Government side. I will have to write it down because if he keeps making untoward interruptions I will have to put it on the record. He says the words speak for themselves. Well, they do, but is that what the Government intends? If they speak for themselves, they mean that once a warrant is granted the Solicitor General must agree to the first renewal, but after that they can keep renewing forever, before a judge, without the Solicitor General having to agree at all.
We have seen some quite extraordinary actions today on the part of the Government with closure and the refusal to accept any amendments whatsoever. We spent weeks in committee, heard from 25 groups and witnesses, and 50 briefs were filed. Despite all the nonsense that has gone on, and the fraudulent process, which has been commented on a number of times today, this is really quite an extraordinary amendment. I cannot believe, at least I would not want to believe, that Hon. Members sitting here tonight would seriously put this amendment forward and support it knowing what it says. Quite obviously the Government amendment has not been explained to anyone on the other side because they cannot explain it to us.
Just consider this. When you start renewing warrants, once, twice, four times, five times, and on and on and on, that is the very sort of situation the Solicitor General ought to be looking at. Suppose you had a group under surveillance for not just one year, but two years, five years or ten years. Is that not the kind of thing the Solicitor General ought to be addressing his or her mind to? Of course it is. Yet this amendment will legitimize a situation which was surely not intended. We can clutch at any straw of hope that may float by and say, perhaps there is a drafting error. But not a single Member of the Government wants to rise and tell us what in the name of all that is holy this amendment is all about. It does not make any sense. Quite frankly, I do not see how the Government can ask us to vote for it, or even against it, if Members opposite cannot explain it. They are not explaining it.
As you know perfectly well, Mr. Speaker, the position of our Party on these warrants is that they should be for 60 days, as are similar warrants under the Criminal Code. Members of the other Party have supported us on that, and even one Member of the Government side, who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, supports us on it. This clause does not make any sense.
One of these days someone is going to look at this legislation. If something goes wrong, they are going to take a long hard look at it. It will be interesting when Hon. Members on the other side, including the Solicitor General, are asked: You mean to say you put through a provision in this Bill that would literally keep the Solicitor General from knowing about renewals of warrants? This is really quite extraordinary. The whole purpose of having the Solicitor General look at the renewal the first time is to force the political person responsible for the administration of the security service to apply their minds to what is happening.
You can ask: Why is it necessary? It is necessary because the whole reason for this Bill, for the McDonald Commission, for Bill C-157 which went to the Senate, for the Senate report and all of the millions and millions of words expressed on this issue since the revelations of 1977, is to make sure that never again can a Solicitor General and a Prime Minister come in with the fatuous notion, as the Prime Minister did some years ago, that you do not have to worry about secret, illegal things because the courts will look after us. Those are his exact words. How the courts were going to look after us when things were secret and illegal I do not know. But the whole problem started because political Liberal Ministers were not asking the questions they should have been asking, and they were not controlling the security service as they should have been. There was no political control.
Therefore, I invite Hon. Members, if they can, to get up on their feet and explain to me and the public watching tonight, and to the media who I know are paying a great deal of attention, after a lack of attention the last couple of days- explain to all of us who are interested why in the name of heaven you want that amendment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since, by your ruling, we have this clause before us, I want to point out two things in general and give some examples. I first want to point out how astonishing it is that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) should insist on doing away with his own authority and responsibility and handing it over irrevocably to some appointed official. It is astonishing that he would insist on doing that in a matter in respect of which he is charged with safeguarding the liberties of citizens of Canada.
Second, I wish to point out how astonishing it is that we should be asked to approve a system in which surveillance of a persons not charged with any crime should be allowed to continue year after year in an automatic, bureaucratic way without any responsibility exercised by an elected official.
The public asked that several abuses which were carried out by the RCMP, no doubt at the direction of people such as the
June 19, 1984

Solicitor General, and which abuses were documented by several commissions of inquiry, be corrected. The public is expecting that these abuses will be corrected by this Bill rather than being confirmed, sanctified and extended, which is exactly what the Solicitor General is asking us to do.
An example of the abuses which have undoubtedly happened thousands of times in this country is when the secret police, in this case the RCMP, went to a bishop to try to influence him against licensing a priest because that priest had been engaged in criticizing a law such as the padlock law. The RCMP went secretly to the bishop to try to prevent that priest from being licensed.
Another example is when the RCMP went to the manager of a factory to suggest that a certain worker was perhaps not fit to work in that factory because he had been outspoken in criticism of laws such as the padlock law.
That is not the business of the police. It is not the business that the public understands the police to be engaged in. The police are supposed to be finding wrongdoers and bringing them to light. That is the business the public associates with the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, or with the KGB in the Soviet Union. That is the business of suppressing dissent by intimidation and by spreading malicious and oftern false rumours.
Men, women, children in their strollers and babes in arms come to peace demonstrations and walk at peace under the direction of city police. They obey the law and the officers of the law charged with keeping the peace on the street. Yet other uniformed or police not in uniform are taking pictures of them. Why? Are they finding tens of thousands of criminals, some of them not yet one year old? Certainly not. They are trying to intimidate them. They are trying to make people afraid to come out publicly and express their opinions. This kind of intrusion is to be extended limitlessly. The Minister in charge is to be excused from any responsibility for extending indefinitely the scope of this kind of intrusion.
Travellers to the United States have been fingered by the RCMP with information to the FBI. These are not criminals or suspected criminals. They are only people who have been engaged in legitimate, lawful political activity which the Government of the day does not like. This kind of fingering continues, based partly on information obtained illegally and partly on information obtained with warrants such as this. The Solicitor General is asking that the police have virtually unlimited power to have these warrants renewed year after year so that they can harass these people.
In the same way the police, with or without permission, have been found to have been issuing false, forged documents slandering citizens of Canada. Again, these are not citizens accused of any crime. They are citizens who have engaged in saying truthful things that the Government does not like to have said. The Solicitor General wants the secret police to be able to get those warrants and have them renewed year after year without him having any moral or political responsibility for the harm that is being done by that kind of intimidation of dissent.
Security Intelligence Service
The Solicitor General ought to be ashamed. Obviously he does not know the meaning of shame. I hope there is more than one Member of the Government side who is giving this matter some thought. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would say to them that this could happen to any one of them. History is full of examples of that kind of reversal. The people who bring in these repressive laws finally fall under those same laws themselves. I ask Hon. Members opposite to think ahead and recognize what might be done if they ever conscientiously fall afoul of the opinion or the political dogma of some future Solicitor General. This law should not be allowed to pass in its present form.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the outlandish comments made by the Members opposite and I can no longer remain seated after listening to the remarks delivered by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and the absolutely incoherent words gabbled by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).
If there is an amendment which to my mind should please most Members in this House, and when I say most, I exclude of course the NDP Members, it is certainly this one because what the Bill said before this amendment was moved, Mr. Speaker-and if I may I shall read it-was, and this is quite clear: "The judge may renew the warrant if satisfied by evidence ..." The amendment adds two restrictions to what the Hon. Member for Spadina could consider excessive powers. The first restriction or buffer is that the judge may renew the warrant, but only from time to time. From time to time does not necessarily mean always. However, the Opposition Members are trying to tell the Canadian public that this would be an abusive power, and they are taking it for granted that every time a warrant is issued, it would be followed by a second, a third and a fourth, and all this for unspecified periods. This is the first restriction.
The second restriction, Mr. Speaker, concerns the duration of the warrant. In the first version of the Bill, there was no mention of the period covered by the warrant, while the amendment moved by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), which is an excellent amendment, says that the warrant cannot be issued for a period exceeding the first one.
Those two restrictions or buffers, which were not contained in the original text of the Bill, have been added to prevent any abuse.
When the Member opposite mentioned the Padlock Act, which all law students in Quebec have studied, he should have known that this type of abusive political power cannot exist under such a Bill unless he does not believe in the independence of the judiciary. Here again, there is a third restriction because there must be agreement between the judge and the Solicitor General or else the warrant will not be renewed.
4848

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
In addition, to have a warrant renewed after getting the Solicitor General's agreement, going before a judge and giving evidence to justify the renewal of a warrant for a period not exceeding that of the first one, you would have to prove under the provisions of the Act and all the provisions of Section 21 how the security of Canada and so on are threatened.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot remain seated after hearing such misrepresentations, because if any amendment should please all the Members of this House, it is certainly this one and I urge all my colleagues to support it.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the package of amendments now before us with respect to the security bill, I must ask the Government why it believes that it needs more power to snoop on subversives, real or imagined, because it does not require this under other legislation either past or currently before the House. Why does it want more power to snoop on real or imagined subversives than it requires to gather intelligence on murderers, financeers of the narcotics rackets and a host of other criminal activities that are generally considered to be much higher on the national agenda in terms of public concern than matters of so-called national security in Canada? I am not demeaning the nation in any way, but I do not know many Canadians who have believed in recent years that national security and the fear of being spied on is a matter of such paramount concern that we need to usurp our traditional freedoms in order to satisfy a whim of the Government.
Presumably the Government did not grab this idea out of thin air. What does it believe will happen in this nation that it must give unholy attention to the need for all of these mechanisms that are outlined in this legislation? Some of the provisions in this legislation simply do not exist in measures for the investigation of other crimes in Canada at the moment.
One of the amendments moved by my colleague, the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), is Motion No. 59 which states:
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 13 the following:
"(6) A warrant shall not be issued under subsection 3 authorizing the
obtaining of any information or thing or intercepting any communication
which would reveal confidential medical records except with the consent of the
patient."
What does the Government envisage happening in Canada in the next few years that has never happened before that will require it to be allowed to snoop on the private medical records of patients against their will and the longstanding tradition of confidentiality?
Will we become another Bronx? It was not long ago that I was talking to two German deputies from Schleswig Holstein at a NATO parliamentary conference in Copenhagen. These two members of the Bundestag visited Houston, Texas, and New York City. The one who visited New York City spent two nights in a patrol car in the Bronx. He was horrified because it
reminded him of bombed out industrial Germany when he was a child. However, it was not only the physical condition that affected him, it was that no one gave a damn.
Is that what the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Government perceives the situation to be in the inner core of Canadian cities? Is that why it is so concerned about the possibility of widespread subversion and civil unrest, that it wants to be able to pry into medical records, taxation records and to continue to snoop by electronic means and the opening of private mail that the law does not permit it to do today?
What does the Government know that we do not know? Perhaps a member of the Government will tell us why it considers this matter of espionage and subversion to be so high on our national agenda that it is prepared to shove every other piece of legislation aside in order to proceed with it. I hope this is a bad dream and a figment of the Government's imagination. There must be a reason why it is willing to subvert our whole process of law in a way that has never been done before in this nation. Perhaps a Government member will enlighten us as to exactly what is taking place that our national priorities, and what is acceptable and unacceptable in law must be changed or will change.
The matter of prying into medical records was the subject of a rather interesting letter from the Canadian Medical Association on May 4, 1984. Mr. Freamo, Secretary General of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in which he said:
My attention has been drawn to criticism of the Canadian Medical Association expressed by committee members during yesterday afternoon's hearing. The criticism appears to have been based on the perceived "non-interest" in Bill C-9 on the part of the Association and in this context I would like to outline for you the CMA's actions to date.
In September of 1983, the CM A was made aware of problems that could ensue if sections of Bill C-157
That was the parent Bill to this one. It continues:
-were to become law. Concern had been expressed by Dr. Phillip Berger in a letter to Ms. Lorraine Gotlib, QC and it was through the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), to whom the letter had been forwarded, that the CMA was made aware of Dr. Berger's concerns.
The joint committee of the CMA/CBA reviewed Bill C-157 and agreed that the concerns and reservations expressed by Dr. Berger were valid. The joint committee reported to its respective executive bodies. Subsequently the CMA communicated its views to the chairman of the Senate committee charged with reviewing Bill C-157.
In mid-April the joint CMA/CBA committee reviewed Bill C-9 and concluded that the concerns previously expressed had not been allayed by the new version of the bill.
Of particular concern to the CMA are the following sections: Section 16- Collection of information concerning foreign states and persons; Section 19- Authorized disclosure of information; Part II Judicial Control, Sections 21-28.
Section 16 does not appear to build in any safeguards in respect to the Service obtaining from physicians information about individuals not protected under the section. The physician may well be in the 'protected' category and as such not have his or her actions investigated; an attempt to do this is outlined in Section 16(2). This section does nothing to protect the patient from having his or her records examined and/or drawing the physician into providing information about a patient over and above what may be recorded in the record.
I do not intend to read any more of that letter. However, I want to again point out to the Government and the public that
June 19, 1984

this agency is going much further in regard to investigative powers than Canadian law has hitherto provided. Why is it necessary?
In the report filed by the Solicitor General for the period covering the last year, we see that some 44 per cent of the electronic snooping carried out in Canada was for reasons of national security. That in itself was a shock. However, when we see the Government paying undue attention to new and unheard of legal powers in Canada, we must be more than just a little disturbed.
Many of my constituents experienced the dark McCarthy era in the United States. We know what can happen even under a regime of law that has traditionally been much more protective of individual liberties than has our own. We have seen the abuses that have taken place once a certain climate of opinion is created. We saw how many people across Canada, including all of the people in the Government, were prepared on the very shallowest of evidence to obliterate or suspend civil liberties across Canada; because a few kids were running around in a couple of cars with guns. We know how easy it is for mass hysteria to be whipped up, just as it was against the Japanese Canadians during the early period of the Second World War.
It is important when we are dealing with these kinds of excesses and new powers that we remember we have to design law not only for normal times, but design the law in such a way that it will safeguard our basic rights at a time when national and public opinion may be, to say the least, abnormal and excited to the point where steps may be taken that would not normally be pursued.


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


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by apologizing to Members for my short absence from the House in the last hour during which one of the Government amendments came up. It is not an amendement of tremendous consequence. It was merely an attempt by the law officers of the Crown to redraft an amendment which I accepted during committee hearings.
I am glad to see the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) in the House, even though I believe he is hiding behind the curtain, because it gives me the opportunity to contradict the assertion that not one single amendment was accepted during the committee hearings. In fact, amendments were accepted during committee hearings. This is an example of one. I wish the Hon. Member would stop saying that absolutely not one single amendment was accepted during committee hearings.
The object of the redrafting is rather technical. It is to conform the ministerial approval feature to the method in which ministerial approval is provided in the earlier part of the Bill which deals with first application for a warrant.
Security Intelligence Service
In so far as the convoluted interpretation of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South about whether the Minister's approval is required for subsequent renewals, I can assure him that it is. In the way the legislation is drafted now, not only is the original application subject to ministerial pre-approval, but every renewal will require ministerial approval. I think that is a suggestion made by members of the committee from all sides of the House, which the Government was very pleased to accept. The amendment which is being proposed by me for the Government on this subject is simply an attempt to draft the ministerial renewal provision in the same manner as the ministerial approval in the original warrant clause provides.
The Hon. Member who just spoke has left the House, after asking some tremendously difficult questions. I can see that the questions he asks are very important ones, questions which ought to concern every Member of Parliament. But I would like to remind him, or tell him, because it may be news to him, that that is not the first time those questions have been asked. Those questions have been asked in committee and at second reading. I can assure the Hon. Member that very good answers were given by me and by other witnesses.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Let's have them.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: For example, the McDonald Commission itself recommended the powers which are provided in this Bill.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Solicitor General is misleading the House. The McDonald Commission did not recommend intrusive powers against so-called domestic subversives, and the Minister knows that well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) does not have a point of order. The Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Minister should not mislead the House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member interrupted me. This is something the two of us have said to each other so often, I would say perhaps three or four dozen times. He has made the point that the McDonald Commission recommended these powers, and that is the point I have just made. But it did not recommend that they be available for domestic subversion. But when you talk about letter opening and all of the intrusive horrendous, in their view, powers which are being awarded to this service-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Are they not?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -this is something which is news to the Hon. Member-They were recommended by the McDonald Commission for use, if the Hon. Member for Burnaby will let me finish, in connection with sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition. I have taken the position for the Government that they should also be available for sub-paragraph (d). But again the Hon. Member for Burnaby and I have had this exchange so often that it is painful for me to repeat it.

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: It is painful for us to listen to you.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This, of course, is one of the reasons the Government has introduced time allocation. It is because you just cannot go on hour after hour, day after day, having the Member ask the same questions, having the Minister give the same answers, having the Member ask the same questions, and having me give the same answers.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Give a substantive answer, then.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You reach a certain point-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Sit down and listen over there.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -I am not giving my substantive answer again. I have given a substantive answer which has satisfied the media. I have given a substantive answer which has satisfied my caucus. I can give an answer; I can explain something to the Members opposite, but I cannot understand it for them. That is up to them. If they are not capable of doing it, I think we should just move along to another section of the Bill.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Explain it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will not explain it again because I am fed up explaining it again. My answers are on the record dozens of times and I am not making them again. It is insulting of that Hon. Member to arrive here hundreds of hours after this debate has begun and start asking questions that were asked in the first five minutes of those hundreds of hours and were answered in the first five minutes. Nuts to him.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on Motion No. 52, the first motion of the present series of motions which has been debated. The motion is moved by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Heap, who moves that Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Order, please. The next grouping of motions starts with Motion No. 64.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take it that in having deferred that grouping, we deferred all motions which were included in that grouping?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The vote on Motion No. 52 is deferred and that, of course, will defer all the rest of the votes on the motions in that particular grouping.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for La Prairie (M. Deniger) rises on a point of order.


Pierre Deniger: I just want to make sure that this is clear, so that there is no misunderstanding like before. They say here- and I understand that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 58 would dispose of Motions Nos. 53 etc., but that a negative vote would necessitate votes on Motions Nos. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59-now that I have read it again, I think I understand, don't you, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Personally, I feel there is no misunderstanding.


Svend Johannes Robinson: moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 23.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For the benefit of the House, the motions before the House are Motions Nos. 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 80, 82, 87, 88, 90, 92, 98, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, and 112.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not clear about Your Honour's ruling on the point of order raised by the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary.


Pierre Deniger: It was for clarification.


J. Michael Forrestall: It was for clarification. Perhaps the Chair might reiterate that because I am not sure that what I heard left that impression.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It was for clarification. When the vote on Motion No. 52 was deferred, that automatically deferred the vote on all other motions in that particular grouping.
If the House wishes, I could read all the motions in this particular grouping. Shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 19, 1984


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is that the pleasure of the House? I could read them all.


An Hon. Member:: Read them all.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would urge Hon. Members opposite not to require the Chair to go through the motion of reading the motions included in this grouping. If they are interested in debate, surely they are capable of reading them and can spend the time more usefully discussing them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate the new-found interest of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in providing time for debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is unfair.


Svend Johannes Robinson: However, I would remind the Solicitor General that there are people outside this Chamber who are watching what is going on. They are watching with anger and outrage what is going on. Surely they should be entitled to observe these proceedings as well.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is the desire of the Official Opposition not to require the Chair to read in detail the amendments. I believe they are familiar to the people of Canada. The people of Canada are quite aware of our general opposition to the amendments. We do not require the reading of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Whilst the Chair appreciates that comment, it is also the wish of the Chair to please all Hon. Members of the House. If certain Members require that the motions be read, the Chair will so do. The Chair has already read Motion No. 64. The remaining motions read as follows:


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 69.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 70.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 71.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 72.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 73.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 80.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 82.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 87.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 88.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Security Intelligence Service

Motion No. 90
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 98
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 103
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 104
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 105
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 106
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 107
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
Motion No. 110
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 111
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 112.
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 51.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For debate on the grouping of motions, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the comments by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that indeed the people who are watching the debate on television should know exactly what is happening as a result of these motions, perhaps Your Honour would return to the initial section which is being eradicated as a result of the motions so that the audience will be able to see exactly what provision is being deleted. In that way they will be better able to understand the debate before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am afraid the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) will have to provide some explanation to the Chair on that point of order as to precisely what he wants me to do.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that you have indicated the motions being introduced and the numbers of the clauses to be deleted. Since there is no explanation of what clauses are being deleted, so that the audience will know in accordance with the wishes of the Hon. Member for Burnaby the content of the clauses, perhaps Your Honour would want to read each one of them. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Burnaby would like to read each one of the clauses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Now I understand what the Hon. Minister is saying. I have read the motions, which is all I have to read. If anyone else wants to read the clauses,

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
they are perfectly at liberty to do so. The Bill is available to all Members of the House and I assume, on demand, to any member of the public who wishes to have it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The purpose of the editorial electrification of our debates was for the edification of the people of Canada. It was not to prolong their suffering. Rather, it was to enable them to enjoy the House of Commons. The distinguished Member of Parliament who holds the portfolio of Minister of National Defence knows better. His remarks were somewhat facetious. On the other hand, I might join with him in the sentiment which he expressed because sometimes we do baffle people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I do not consider that to be a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to proceed to a very sober consideration of this important grouping of motions to delete. The motions in question would delete a number of clauses. I will certainly not take the time of the House to refer to all of them in the 10 minutes available to me.


Mr. Masters:: Why not?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Because there are members of the public who have copies of the Bill available. I am sure they will follow with interest the debates in the House with copies of the Bill in their hands. They know that Liberal Members of the House have taken no interest whatsoever in the Bill to this point. Certainly we would welcome the participation of those Members in this debate for the first time.
Clause 23 gives a new power to enter any place, to remove anything which has been placed in a dwelling house, office or any other location. I would note briefly that this is a power which is being accorded to the service for the first time. As well, under the provisions of Clause 26 of the proposed Bill, none of the procedural safeguards which exist under the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to interceptions of telephone communications under the code, none or at least minimal safeguards apply under this Bill. For example, the rules of evidence with respect to derivative evidence are not applicable. None of the safeguards that this Parliament insisted upon under the provisions of this Bill. We say that is wrong.
As well, under the provisions of the Bill that deal with the powers and functions of the proposed Security Intelligence Review Committee, I would note that this committee can engage in very sweeping powers, but the powers are circumscribed by one very essential element. That element is the oath of secrecy which is included in Clause 37. Under the provisions of Clause 37, the members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee are required to swear that they will not disclose or make known to any person any information acquired by them by reason of the duties that they are performing under the Act. Effectively what this does is to deny any power of meaningful oversight when coupled with the provision of this Bill that would deny them access to Cabinet documents as well.
In addition, the powers and functions of this review committee are set out at proposed Clause 38 of the Bill. These powers as set out in that clause fall short of those which are required for full and effective scrutiny and oversight. For example, there is no power under the provisions of the Bill as it is now worded for the service to review the relationships that exist between the security service and all other bodies and agencies engaged in security or intelligence functions in Canada. Despite the clear recommendation of the McDonald Commission and number of other witnesses that any review committee should have jurisdiction over all of the players in the intelligence community, this Bill would not grant that jurisdiction to the proposed Security Intelligence Review Committee.
As well, the committee has no explicit power to review the criteria which are set out for security assessments under subclause 13 of the Bill, security assessments which are obviously critical when it comes to the awarding of contracts, the hiring of individuals for government jobs or promotions. The criteria for those assessments are currently set out in an outdated Cabinet document, Cabinet Directive No. 35, which dates back over 20 years to 1963. There is no requirement whatsoever that the new review committee review the criteria of these security assessments to ensure that there is not an excessive number of such assessments and that such assessments are being carried out pursuant to carefully drafted criteria.
I would note as well there is no provision in the Bill that grants the review committee the power to review the terms of conditions of employment which are established by the director pursuant to Clause 8 of this Bill. I made reference to this on an earlier amendment, the possibility of unfair or unreasonable terms and conditions of employment being established by the director and with the denial of any form of collective bargaining rights to members of the service. They have no alternative whatsoever, no recourse at all. Clause 38 should permit the members of the service to have the terms and conditions of their employment reviewed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
Under the provisions of Clause 47 of the proposed Bill, where there is a complaint about the activities or conduct of the new civilian security service, the review committee has to tell the director ahead of time: "Excuse me, Mr. Director, there has been a complaint made about you. We are coming in to investigate." What does that do to the powers of independent investigation, this so-called independent watchdog that is supposed to be scrutinizing the new service? When they want to investigate a potential wrongdoing, before they get to first base they are denied any access to Cabinet documents and they have to inform the director that they are coming in to investigate. It makes a mockery of any suggestion of effective or independent oversight.
Clause 50 is another clause which would be deleted under the motions which have been grouped for the purpose of this debate. It was important that the Speaker not dispense with the reading of those motions so that the people of this country will know clearly that at least one Party in this House is
June 19, 1984

prepared, unfortunately without the assistance of the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), to fight the fight against this repressive legislation, a fight which in the past the Secretary of State was prepared to wage against similar repressive provisions in the Immigration Act.
Under Clause 50 of this Bill, the review committee has sweeping powers to summon individuals before it, to receive and accept evidence and other information, whether on oath, on affidavit or otherwise, as the committee sees fit. That means that in the case of an individual such as Victor Regola-do, the El Salvadoran refugee who, despite being found to be a bona fide political refugee in this country was ordered out of Canada, ordered deported by virtue of a signature by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), the review committee could rely upon hearsay evidence submitted to them in the form of a letter from a secret police service in one of these repressive military dictatorships suggesting that the individual in question is a threat to security. There was a time when the Secretary of State would have stood in his place and denounced these repressive measures. Sadly, that time appears to have been passed. This provision makes a mockery of the rules of natural justice which should apply when dealing with the fundamental liberties of Canadians and indeed the fundamental civil liberties of visitors to this country.
In conclusion, I urge the Members of this House to support the motions before us. They deal with clauses which pose very serious concerns to Canadians. They deal with clauses which should be deleted in the interest of protecting and enhancing the civil liberties of all Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this perversion in the Government's Bill of the idea of a review committee is one of the two or three most serious faults in it. We have been told that the Government's legislation follows much of the McDonald Commission's recommendations. On certain points it does. We have been told that it follows the Pitfield recommendations. On certain points it does. One point on which the McDonald Commission was explicit was that this review committee should be set up to have real powers of review and should be subject to Parliament. There is something now being proposed, given the same name, that in its essential nature was changed by the Solicitor General's Bill.
This review committee has no right to access to Cabinet documents. I have heard Members opposite state publicly and to the media that this committee will have access to all information. That is false. I think that Members opposite, including some of the senior front-benchers who have made that statement, must know that what they are saying is false and intended to mislead the public. The committee will not have access to all information. It will be denied access to any Cabinet document which the director or the Cabinet or both together may choose to deny it.
The committee will not have the unfettered right to inquire into the actions of the secret service. It will need to give notice
Security Intelligence Service
so that matters can be covered up, re-arranged and fudged over before the committee looks at them. The committee will be limited by an oath of secrecy so that it may learn things only under circumstances which prevent it from acting on the knowledge it receives. It may find itself in a position of servere conflict of conscience.
Parliament is essentially denied its control over that committee. I was very sorry to hear the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) say earlier this evening that the appointment of senior people to the committee will require the approval of the opposition Parties. That is false. I suppose the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton knew what it was false when he said it. However, he is not present so that he may blush. According to the legislation, those appointments do not require the approval of opposition Parties. The recommendation of the McDonald Commission was that those appointments should require that approval.
I do not know the intentions of the Hon. Member, but I regret the fact that he is not here to correct any unintentionally misleading remark he may have made. It was certainly misleading when he said that such approval is required. That is entirely false and I am sorry that a front-bencher for the Liberal Party would make that kind of remark. We have been told how this matter has been discussed over and over in caucus so as to create the best possible Bill. I am sure the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton was party to those discussions. He must know that on the very point about which he spoke, what he said was not true.
This Bill does not require that the members of the review committee be approved by the leaders of the opposition Parties. It only requires that the Prime Minister shall consult with the leaders of the opposition Parties. In other words, the Prime Minister may say: "I am going to appoint Mr. So-and-So and Mr. So-and-So, what do you think?" The leaders of the opposition Parties may say: "No, they are not fit," and the Prime Minister may reply: "Tough luck, boys, I am appointing them." That is consultation. It is consultation that is not subject to any requirement that the Leader of the Official Opposition or the leader of any other Party having 12 Members of the House should give approval.
It is very interesting that while the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is using every dirty trick in the book to drive this legislation through the House, his front-bench colleagues find it appropriate to mislead the public by saying that appointments to this vital review committee require the input of the leaders of the opposition Parties. They know that that is false. They should be ashamed of their attempt to mislead the public in such a fashion. They are not misleading the opposition Parties. This is a point about which both opposition Parties have already made a very clear complaint. However, it is a point about which it appears the government Party is willing to try to mislead the media or, through the media, to mislead the public. It is very unfortunate that government Members have stooped so low.
These clauses of the Bill ought to be deleted. Better still, they should be withdrawn by the Government for reformula-

June 19, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
tion so that they will be in accordance with the recommendations of the McDonald Commission. The recommendations of the McDonald Commission have the support of everyone in the country who has spoken to this matter, except the Solicitor General and his Party. They form the tiny minority in this country which disagrees with the McDonald Commission on this point, along with perhaps a few Party colleagues in the Senate.
The people who have spoken on this matter want that review committee to fall under the authority of the whole of Parliament, and not only the authority of the Government in consultation with the rest of Parliament. They want Parliament to have the powers of investigation that were recommended by the McDonald Commission. I urge the Government to withdraw these clauses. If that does not happen, I urge members of the Government to join with the opposition in voting them down.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on Motion No. 64, the first motion of the grouping which has already been read to the House.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. As I said a little earlier, that automatically defers the divisions on the other motions contained within this particular grouping.
The next motion, the first in the grouping, is Motion No. 75. I shall read the motion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 75
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 31
(a)	by striking out line 16 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor: "Parliament, the"
(b)	by striking out lines 26 to 31 at page 16.


John Allen Fraser: Motion No. 79
That Bill C-9 be amended in Clause 31
(a)	by striking out line 16 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor: "Parliament, the"
(b)	by striking out lines 26 to 31 at page 16.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For debate, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, there are only a few minutes left. Certainly Motion No. 79 which stands in my name, along with the other motions in this grouping, is of very significant substance. I wonder if it might be the pleasure of the House to permit me to call it nine o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, when I raised a particular question in December my main concern arose from the prospect that members of the management of NTCL may be involved in a consortium to purchase NTCL. This would give them a decided advantage over all other interest groups as they have had over four years to prepare for the sale of the company. It is for this reason that I raised that question.
In July, 1983, as a member of the Indian and Northern Affairs Committee, I began investigating the operations of NTCL. I placed my many concerns on the Order Paper. I have not received answer to those questions, even though the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave me the assurances that then would be responded to before the company was privatized.
My concerns regarded safety practices; the quality of the steel which was used to build the barges for bulk fuel hauling, general mismanagement, as evidenced by the Thruster bargers and the refitting of the M.V. Broderick and the M.V. Banks-land, and the desire for public hearings in communities which are serviced by NTCL in order that the people in the North could provide their input as to the conditions of sale.
I would like to put three concerns before the House. They are the assessment of the land, the accounting of revenues and the legislative requirements of the sale. As this company is
June 19, 1984

intended to be privatized, it is important that there be an accurate assessment of the value.
The share value of the company is $25 million. There are shares of $250,000. The assessed assets are $60 million. That means that there is a share value of $240 per share. Some say that the assessed value is as high as $250 million. That would mean that the share value is $1,000 per share. If the assessed value is $100 million, the share value would be $400 per share. These are examples of assessed values. It is important for perceived buyers to know what the company is worth.
I would like to examine the Fort McMurray problem, which involves some 49 acres, most of which was seconded during wartime for this company. It was received at a very low book value, which is now the value it is assessed at in the company's assets. In Fort McMurray, the assessed value of its property, undeveloped, zoned industrial with no development plan at the present time is $5.5 million. As soon as a development plan is put forward and this property is zoned commercial the value will increase to $8.5 million. We know that NTCL has put forward a development plan, even though the chairman indicated that that was not taking place.
Now there is the arrival of First Boston of Canada. They are supposed to perform an assessment of the value of the company. It is important for that company to know what NTCL's assets are and what the potentials are if those assets are developed. We need a fair, accurate and real assessment. Therefore, I hope that the report of First Boston will be tabled in the House so that we all will know that it is an accurate assessment of the value.
We know that there is an architectural development plan for a shopping complex, complete with office towers, in progress. In fact, the present land has been re-zoned from industrial to commercial. Therefore, its assessed value will increase.
Another concern I have relates to the ARD-31. This ship was given to NTCF by treaty from the United States Government. NTCL is required by that treaty to report all revenues and profits to the United States Government. We are very concerned that this is not the case. We heard in the standing committee the state of the declared revenues from 1979 to 1980. There were no profits. In 1981, there was a profit of $4,000. In 1982, there was a profit of $233,000. In 1983, there was a loss of $321,000. It is impossible for NTCL to have revenues of $233,000 in 1982 if one company had leasing fees in that year of over $1 million. NTCL serves many other companies.
My concern is that for some reason there has been an improper reporting to the United States Government of the actual revenues and profits that the ARD-31 is earning in the North. I have been listening to the questions of a Congresswoman in the United States regarding the reporting of this income. The President of NTCL was asked to provide answers to those questions and he refused to do so. That indicates that there is some suspicion of what is taking place.
I have a copy of a letter which is addressed to the Congresswoman, the Hon. Patricia Schroeder, wherein it reads:
Adjournment Debate
The Air Force contract administrator, Captain Mohn, attempted to obtain the requested information; however, Mr. L.R. Montpetit, President of NTCL, declined to provide the information.
Grimshaw Trucking, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NTCL, a Crown corporation, had been bidding for contracts this year at 1980 rates. Is it fair that a company which is a Crown corporation should be under-bidding the private corporations in that area, many of which are showing losses? They can in no way compete with these 1980 rates. Why would that company be doing this now, at a time when it is supposedly going to be privatized? The only reason I can see for that is they want to bring the value down so that those people who are interested in buying the company, perhaps even the managers themselves, will have a better opportunity to do so.
If one looks at the company, one will find that it has liquid assets almost equal to half the value of the company. It is almost possible to buy the company out with its own cash and the sale of some of its subsidiaries. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I want answers to these questions before this Government privatizes that company. I believe that anyone who would buy that company would want the same kinds of answers. I want to make sure that the taxpayers of this nation get fair value for what they have put into this company and that the citizens of the north who depend on it for service continue to receive that service.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to answer the question raised by the Hon. Member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) concerning the sale of Northern Transportation Company Limited.
The Hon. Member's concern seems to be that the Government of Canada is proceeding too quickly with the sale of this company to the private sector. However, it stands to reason the Government would want to expedite the sale. The Hon. Member should realize that once the decision has been made to sell the company, there is no reason to delay the sale. Any delay would create confusion that would cause concern among both employees and prospective buyers. We want to avoid this as much as possible. We would like to dispose of the company in circumstances conducive to getting us the best price. We would like Northern Transportation Company Limited to continue its important function as a reliable and efficient supplier for Northern communities and businesses.
As for the questions raised by the Hon. Member, I can assure him that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is aware of these questions and that they will be answered. There is no connection between the decision to sell the company and questions that have been raised about details of the company's operations. Our decision to sell Northern Transportation Company Limited was made after an exhaustive analysis of the implications for native peoples and Northern development, not out of opportunistic, short-term considerations.

June 19, 1984
Adjournment Debate
The Hon. Member has expressed concern about the company's assets. He ought to know that the company runs a seasonal operation which therefore needs more working capital than most other operations. He should also realize that the end of the year happens to be the time when the company's cash flow is at its maximum. It is therefore inaccurate to infer a connection between the financial situation of the company and the shutdown of the Athabasca operation. The decision to shut down the Athabasca operation was made after substantial financial losses were ascertained and after a thorough analysis of the situation, which confirmed there were acceptable alternatives to this traditional service.
As far as the Churchill operation is concerned, Northern Transportation Company Limited has not slowed down this operation at all, whatever the Hon. Member's questions may seem to suggest. Traffic depends on customers and not on Northern Transportation Company Limited.


ENERGY-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ENERGY COSTS- GOVERNMENT POLICY. (B) IMPACT OF NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: manner of other energy initiatives. Why should P.E.I. be discriminated against? You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister would be much less reluctant if his native province of Quebec were in P.E.I.'s position. I urge the Minister, at the very least, to view this entire issue with an open mind.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is not federal Government policy to directly subsidize electricity rates in any province, including Prince Edward Island. We have encouraged Prince Edward Island to negotiate long-term, firm power purchases with New Brunswick power and Hydro-Quebec. Such an arrangement represents the best opportunity for Prince Edward Island to bring its electricity rates down to the national average over the long term.
It is, and has been, federal Government policy to subsidize energy costs generally in P.E.I. in a variety of ways. In 1976 Canada provided assistance to P.E.I. through construction of an underwater electrical transmission cable linking the Island's distribution system to that of New Brunswick. The $36 million cost of this cable was supported by a 50 per cent federal Government grant and a 25 per cent loan.
Prince Edward Island's particular energy circumstances were recognized in the National Energy Program of October 1980. A number of measures special to Prince Edward Island were announced. The enhanced conservation portion of the Canada Oil Substitution Program provided special grants for residential investments reducing oil heating costs on the Island. The Altantic Energy Conservation Investment Program was established, providing grants to firms for investments that increase energy efficiency. In addition, Prince Edward Island benefited from national conservation and renewable energy programs. To date $19.16 million has been expended in Prince Edward Island under the following programs: Canada Oil Substitution Program, $2.85 million; Canadian Home Insulation Program, $10.01 million; Atlantic Energy Conservation Investment Program, $.35 million; Conservation and Renewable Energy Demonstration Program, $3.25 million; Forest Industry Renewable Energy, $1.9 million; National Energy Audit Program, $.8 million.
In 1982 Energy, Mines and Resources agreed to undertake a special study, Prince Edward Island energy alternatives. The First phase of this study, which was completed in December, 1983, concluded that the most economic means of reducing energy costs on the Island lay primarily in conservation and the use of wood or biomass. Both alternatives involve a significant degree of provincial content generating economic benefits to the Island.
The federal Government is in the process of concluding an energy sub-agreement with Prince Edward Island which would expend several million dollars on initiatives which would concentrate on utilizing underdeveloped biomass and agricultural waste resources as alternative fuel sources, help to offset high energy costs, reduce the province's relatively heavy dependence on oil and provide a significant economic stimulus to the province itself.
Adjournment Debate


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MILITARY ACCIDENTS-RELEASE OF INQUIRY TRANSCRIPTS. (B) NAMES OF INQUEST WITNESSES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I asked of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) some time ago. When I rose in the House on that day I was concerned that a promise the Minister had made on the nationally televised CBC, The Journal, was not being kept up to that point.
I was referring to the fact that the Minister had appeared on The Journal with respect to a case, which came to his attention through my raising it in the House, of the accidental deaths of two militia privates in Saskatchewan in August of last year. It is a long story which I will not go through, but through a series of questions in the House we came to a point where we broke some new ground in terms of the release of information to parents of militiamen killed in accidents while on duty.
The Minister indicated to me that no longer would people have to go through the access to information route to get copies of the transcripts of the inquiries that the militia conducts when such incidents occur. I had to go through that process on behalf of my constituents in order to set some precedents, and after that the Minister said that from now on parents or designated next of kin would not have to go through that process. All that they would have to do is indicate that they wanted a copy of the transcript and they would get it. That is the commitment that he made on national television that evening.
Some weeks later, however, I phoned the mothers of two militiamen who had been killed and they still had not received the transcripts, even though the Minister said on television some weeks before that all they had to do was call the next morning and he would see to it that everything was looked after and would turn out just fine. Yet we found out some weeks later that although those people had phoned the next morning they had not heard back from anybody and had not received a copy of the transcript. I rose at that time to push and hopefully embarrass the Minister into doing something about living up to that commitment.
I did make one accusation that day that I want to correct. At that time I indicated that the coroner who will preside over the coroner's inquest which is to be held this Friday in fact, into the Krosney-Laurendeau accident had been unable to get a copy of the Board of Inquiry transcript from the Canadian Armed Forces. That was the situation to the best of my information when I said that to the Minister in the House on that day. I learned later that day, from talking to people who were concerned, that the coroner had on the previous weekend been supplied with a copy of the transcript. Just for the record, and out of respect for the facts, I wanted to make that correction on the record.
However, a number of other concerns still stand. I would like to know, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary who is here to answer for the Minister will be able to tell me,

June 19, 1984
Adjournment Debate
whether or not the two designated next of kin who were the object of my discussion with the Minister the last time I rose in the House have now received a transcript. The Minister indicated to me in a letter that he would be in communication with those parents and would be providing them with the transcript. I would like to know if that has happened.
I would also like to know, Mr. Speaker, why in the case of Krosney there only seems to have been reform from the top down so far. I have to give the Minister some credit for having responded to the pressure we put on him through the media, through questions in the House and through petitions, etc. It took some doing, but nevertheless there has been some response. We see this reform from the top down but we still see no reform at the bottom, so to speak, at the regional and local level within the militia. The parents of Private Krosney and Private Laurendeau have still not heard from the militia. They have not received a letter of explanation, apology, or regret that all of this hassle had to be gone through, on top of their grief.
I wonder whether the reason for that is because in the final analysis, in spite of the fact we now have the transcript, and we were even able to get the recommendations which were initially hidden from us through the use of the access to information exemption, the fundamental question of whether or not Private Krosney on that day was trained to drive the vehicle he was driving was not addressed in the recommendations. In the evidence there is plenty of indication that he was not trained. In fact, there was a bald admission that he had no previous training driving a jeep with a gun on the top and a trailer behind it. If that is not addressed in the recommendations, maybe that is why there is still that kind of silence. I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Minister will have some answers for me.
May I just say that I do not want my comments in any way to be construed as an attack on the militia or the cadets or anything like that. I am a supporter of them. I rose in the House the other day to ask for increased funding for the army cadet leader course at Vernon. There are many other issues on which I will have occasion to rise in support of some of the work the militia and the cadets are doing. But they have to clean up their act with respect to how they relate to accidents and how they relate to next of kin. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have something positive to report.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the I Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for his j continued interest and his continued support and concern for the militia. 1 understand the Minister has written the Hon. Member a letter in response to his May 23 question in the
House. I believe in the three minutes allotted to me that it is worth recording the salient points which the letter contained.
When a member of the Canadian Forces dies in the course of his military duty, Canadian Forces authorities, by regulation, are required to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death. This investigation usually takes the form of a board of inquiry which, I might add, is not a substitute for the provincial coroner's investigation, report or inquest.
In addition to determining reasons for and cause of death the Canadian Forces investigation may be used in support of an application for a pension for dependants, it may identify problems regarding material, it may alert authorities to critical requirements pertaining to operations and training. The investigation is a record as defined by the Access to Information Act and, as such, one may gain access to it in accord with and subject to the provisions of that Act.
The Minister has directed that the designated next of kin of a deceased member of the Canadian Forces need not follow the prescribed procedures in the Access to Information Act. Such a request, be it written or oral, is to be treated as if it were an access request under the Access to Information Act. It will be reviewed and subject to the exemptions provided in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, the investigation will be provided to the requester.
Addressing now that part of the Hon. Member's question which dealt with the provision of information to the Coroner of the Province of Saskatchewan in respect of the deaths of Privates Krosney and Laurendeau, I am able to inform you that on 27 April 1984 the Minister personally corresponded with Dr. McMillan. He also directed Canadian Forces authorities to extend fullest co-operation with the Coroner in the discharge of his duties. To that end, a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the board of inquiry convened to investigate the deaths of Privates Krosney and Laurendeau was provided to the Coroner. The minutes provided were complete and include the names of personnel who gave evidence with the exception that the findings and recommendations portions had been removed. The minutes were provided to him for his personal use in the performance of his duties and, as a consequence, they were not to be made public or form part of teh evidence submitted at the inquest.
I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member that the Minister has personally written both to Mrs. Anne McKinnon and Mrs. Caroline Davies forwarding each a copy of the Board of Inquiry they requested. This should have given them the information the Member requested concerning the licence to drive. The only information not contained is that which is exempted from disclosure under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
June 19, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The motion to adjourn now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House
Adjournment Debate
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Stand ing Order 2(1).
At 9.31 p.m., the House adjourned.

Wednesday, June 20, 1984